So Many Words At The Tower Of Babel

From Some questions for modern liberals by Lyle Duell:

From observing many of the letters to the editor, I gather that modern liberals seem to be true believers in big government. If this is the case, I'm curious to know what they want to be liberated from. The word liberal infers that there is something that they want to be liberated from. If it is not big government like classic liberalism believed, what is it? Could it be God? Morality? Normality? In having faith in big government, have not the new liberals betrayed the spirit of the founding fathers and classic liberalism, both of which had a healthy skepticism of government? Maybe one of the new liberals could tell us where liberals' faith in government has come from.

Does it come from the great job that government has done in handling the US Post Office, Social Security, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the War on Poverty, Medicare, Amtrak, the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the public school system? At the same time maybe they can tell us why the American people should trust big government with running our health care and dealing with global warming.

Recently, I have noticed that the new liberals are referring to themselves as progressives. My question is: What have they progressed beyond? Have they progressed beyond liberalism? One would hope so, but I don't think that is the case. Maybe there is a progressive out there who can tell us the difference between the illiberal liberalism of the new liberals and progressivism? Still another question is: Why are the new liberals referring to themselves as progressives? What do they mean by progressive values? Do they mean values that are not traditional or Christian? If so, what are they?

I believe the new liberals, or progressives, owe it to the American people to explain exactly what they believe and to explain their progressive values. Of course, the truth is that the new liberals are just playing games with words. There really isn't anything new or progressive about their beliefs or values. The reason that they have changed their label is that linguistic experts (propagandists) have told them that people respond better to the word progressive than the word liberal.

I am sorry Mr. Duell, you make it very difficult for me to respond to you without it sounding like I am belittling you, mocking you, and talking down to you. I will try hard to be somewhat civil. The regular readers of this blog know that I am not always successful at this. Oh, the words that come to mind that I could use to describe you. Who is actually “playing games with words” here? I will try to be polite. You’re just pulling that “propagandists” stuff out of your ass, aren’t you Mr. Duell? OK, now I’ll try to be polite.

Let’s start with two words that seem to confuse you. Liberal and liberate. Please notice that these are two words, not one. Perhaps there is a reason why. Perhaps they have two different meanings, not one. Let’s examine that thought.

Merriam-Webster says this about the word liberal:

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : ample, full

3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious

4 : not literal or strict : loose

5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

synonyms liberal, generous, bountiful, munificent mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. liberal suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given liberal with her praise>. generous stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift generous offer of help>. bountiful suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing bountiful presents>. munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes munificent foundation grant>.

Wow. That’s really cool. Even I’m learning some things here. However, I don’t see anything about liberals believing in big government. Why would people who believe so much about freedom, and being free men, want to be enslaved by big government? I don’t see anything that infers that there is something that liberals want to be liberated from. I wonder why that is?

Liberals are generous. What the fuck is wrong with them? Who let them out of the loony bin?

Merriam-Webster says this about the word liberate:

Etymology: Latin liberatus, past participle of liberare, from liber
Date: circa 1623
1 : to set at liberty : free; specifically : to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power

2 : to free from combination

3 : to take or take over illegally or unjustly liberated from a nearby construction site — Thorne Dreyer>

synonyms see free

That’s pretty cool too. Two words, two different meanings. The word free seems to be a link between liberal and liberate, but that’s about it. It is interesting that the definition of liberate doesn’t mention liberals at all.

Perhaps it seems that I am being petty. I assure you that I am not. Words and what they mean are extremely important if we are to understand one another, if we are to understand anything at all. Without a solid understanding of what words mean we have the Tower of Babel. (Amazing isn’t it that I, like Richard Dawkins, believe that knowledge of the Bible is important.)

Balance. Mr. Duell makes me think of the word balance. (You can look this one up yourself, if you feel the need to.) A little sense of balance is in order here. Balance implies two sides to every story, not one big dead weight weighing down the narrative into the depths of obfuscation.

Mr. Duell, you seem to be unbalanced. No, not mentally. Unbalanced in a way that I’m at a loss to find a word for. I think that all of us, including me, fall into this trap. We have our beliefs and we frequently use any means necessary to defend them, even if those means are wrong, misguided, or do not make any sense. This trap can ensnare any denomination, and any political belief system. We all need to be vigilant.

You seem to have your own set of beliefs about liberals and progressives. I think that you are misguided in your beliefs. I could go into great depth here, but I will try to keep this brief.

It is false to say that liberals believe in “big government.” Liberals believe that government has the potential to (and sometimes actually does) help the common good.

Not all liberals trust the government. In fact, I think that very few of them do. Let me point out that liberals tend to not trust big corporations as well. It seems, Mr. Duell, that you don’t trust the government, yet it seems to me that you have great faith in corporations. I fail to see the logic in this. For every government agency that you see as a failure, I can name a corporation that actually has been a failure. Enron, Lehman Brothers, etc. (Please don’t say that they failed because of the government. Please don’t go there.)

I tend to think of the government as us, not them. (“We the people” and all of that). I tend to think of big corporations as them, not us. (“We the corporation”)?

Mr. Duell, you say: “…maybe they can tell us why the American people should trust big government with running our health care and dealing with global warming.” Can you tell me why the American people should trust big corporations with running our health care and dealing with global warming? At least with the government involved with these issues there is a sense of balance. The power does not exist solely with the big corporations. Are you honestly pleased with the way that big corporations have dealt with these issues in the past?

Again, not to be petty, but liberal and progressive are two words. They mean different things. For a better understanding of progressives a good place to start would be The Progressive. These “new liberals” have been around for 100 years. Shocking, isn’t it?

Mr. Duell, you seem to seek an understanding of liberals and progressives. In some ways we are alike. I seek an understanding of Conservatives, Libertarians, and right-wingers. It is difficult for me to get past what I see as a bunch of crazy, inflamed rhetoric from the right. Perhaps you have the same problem with the left. I think it is important for both of us to keep trying. Don’t you? However, we will never understand one another at the Tower of Babel.

The right-wing has stolen the word liberal from us. I want it back. The right-wing assigns evil and negativity to the word liberal. Reread the definition. Do you see evil and negativity? I certainly don’t. I want my word back. The right-wing chooses to live in the Tower of Babel. I choose not to.

Say What?

Once again I’m stealing from the current Say What? at the Doonesbury site (where do they find these things?):

"We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No."
-- actor Craig T. Nelson

Can actors think for themselves without writers?

I’m a hard-core liberal leftist. I’ve never been on welfare and/or food stamps. I’m going to assume that Craig T. Nelson is a conservative. What does all of this say about left/right stereotypes?

Divided We Fall

From American Aparthood by Glenn W. Smith:

The Right believes humankind is sorted naturally upon a ladder. The Left believes we walk together upon a bridge.

For the Right, freedom means the recognition of a natural, hierarchical order. By "democracy" the Right means a system that makes sure the "poor and despised" do not usurp the power of those above them on the ladder. The Right says it does not seek to "eat up the poor," though the enforced euthanasia of our health care system puts the lie to that claim.

The Right's worldview is not just an ad hoc, cynical justification of selfishness. It is a meaningful, if destructive, worldview, a worldview that produces aparthood as a reasoned solution to the unpredictable dangers of our lives together in a hostile universe.

As we run up against the resource limits that betray the pacifying illusion of movement up their ladder of life, the Right is panicking.

Human sociality is full of ladders and bridges. The theoretical genius of American democracy lies in this recognition. The Right shares the Framers' skepticism of the masses, but rejects the Framers' much more alarmed skepticism of unchecked authority. The Framers understood that human nature was not an unchanging thing, that humans could not be fixed to permanent, isolated places on a ladder the powerful lower from above.

Disgusting Political Social Games

From Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal by Nicholas D. Kristof:

One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.

Some evolutionary psychologists believe that disgust emerged as a protective mechanism against health risks, like feces, spoiled food or corpses. Later, many societies came to apply the same emotion to social “threats.” Humans appear to be the only species that registers disgust…

Conservatives systematically register more disgust than liberals.

It appears that we start with moral intuitions that our brains then find evidence to support. For example, one experiment involved hypnotizing subjects to expect a flash of disgust at the word “take.” They were then told about Dan, a student council president who “tries to take topics that appeal to both professors and students.”

The research subjects felt disgust but couldn’t find any good reason for it. So, in some cases, they concocted their own reasons, such as: “Dan is a popularity-seeking snob.”

So how do we discipline our brains to be more open-minded, more honest, more empirical? A start is to reach out to moderates on the other side — ideally eating meals with them, for that breaks down “us vs. them” battle lines that seem embedded in us. (In ancient times we divided into tribes; today, into political parties.) The Web site www.civilpolitics.org is an attempt to build this intuitive appreciation for the other side’s morality, even if it’s not our morality.

“Minds are very hard things to open, and the best way to open the mind is through the heart,” Professor Haidt says. “Our minds were not designed by evolution to discover the truth; they were designed to play social games.”

The First Shall Be Last

From Watching Republicans grieve by Mark Schone:

I remember 2004, when they said that the Democrats were in the permanent minority. And now look. So, I think that the minute we write them off, the more we diminish their power, the stronger they're going to be in four years. I think sometimes losing empowers you more than it defeats you. And I found a lot of people who are so unhappy with Obama as president that they are going to do everything they can to help Republican candidates defeat what they see as the liberal takeover of America.

Those are the words of Alexandra Pelosi, Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker and daughter of Nancy Pelosi.

Chaos Theory

From Red Mind, Blue Mind? by Wray Herbert:

New York University psychologist John Jost and his colleagues have been using time-tested instruments to plumb the unconscious attitudes of both self-proclaimed conservatives and liberals. Although most everyone prefers order to chaos, the psychologists found this yearning to be much more potent in conservatives than in liberals. Put another way, conservatives have little tolerance for any messiness, let alone rebelliousness, even on this basic neuronal level. Liberals, by contrast, have a deep-wired preference for flexibility and progress over tradition. The starkest difference between conservatives and liberals was related to feminism, which conservatives believe in their gut to be a threat to their ordered world.

This does not make much sense to me. If this is true why are conservatives so hawkish? War is the most chaotic, messy, rebellious, and disorderly activity invented since the dawn of time. You would think conservatives would hate it.

I guess as long as it is out of sight and not in their own backyard it is OK.