A friend of mine, who calls himself a moderate Democrat, commented to me the other day that he finds amusement in the fact that liberals often style themselves as "progressives" and that, in his assessment, they are doing so because "it sounds better." This friend has a point in that politics is often a matter of definition and perspective. Other than that, any person with a firm grasp on semantics, or a dictionary for that matter, can come to the conclusion that neither word, progressive nor liberal, is a dirty one.
I remember feeling bewildered by the blatant corruption of language that took place during the 2004 election as the right wing labeled John Kerry as "the #1 most liberal senator in the United States Senate." What the hell does that mean? In terms of social policy, "liberal" means he generally favors reform over the status quo, protection of civil rights and liberties over extreme internal security measures, and change through well-targeted government programs over tax cuts.
In the economic sense, which is where things often get dicey, it means a person is in favor of a laissez-faire market system and believes that markets will justly regulate themselves without much government intervention. So in simplest terms, Democrats are generally socially liberal and economically conservative (they prefer checks on the markets), while Republicans are socially conservative and economically liberal.
So now that we are all clear on what terms we are dealing with here, let's move on. Back to the last election. It should kill anyone with half a brain and a good understanding of the English language to see such innocent terms be corrupted for political purposes. Because of this vile practice, there are literally thousands of voters out there who genuinely believe that "liberal" is just another word for anyone who will turn their kids gay, teach them how to make a great living by defrauding the welfare system, and institute a new merit badge within the Boy Scouts for valor in performing late-term abortions in the wilderness.
One cannot expect to have a genuine and honest political discussion with those who corrupt the language in such ways, nor those who buy into such nonsense. So to all of the Eric Fantegrossis, Jerry Falwells, Seth Johnsons, and Ann Coulters of the world...let's cut the crap, people. We have serious problems to face in our nation and wars to fight on our own soil, but we can't do that until we begin to speak the same language. I promise to be civil and non-polarizing with my language if you do the same. Gentlemen's agreement. Great, now that that's settled...
Rather than quoting Webster's or some other hackneyed source for word definitions for the effect of such a juxtaposition, I urge you all to simply access such a source yourself and look up the words "conservative," "liberal," and "progressive." What you find might tweak your interest. It is often good to do this just to remind yourself of the true meaning of words, as words in our culture often get morphed and mutilated for various reasons. After looking up the words, I found myself to be even more genuinely perplexed at the concept of what it means to be conservative in the true sense of the word. Resistant to change. Opposed to reforms. Unimaginatively conventional. If "progress" is the general goal of our society and our social programs, this sounds like the opposite. I simply cannot reconcile having my beliefs grounded in the idea that change is generally unnecessary and that the status quo works just fine.
One could go so far as to say that the only true status quo in this world is change itself! I also see such opposition to change as being a losing battle. Just plain silly. As futile as being opposed to the clouds drifting in the sky or to the Earth revolving around the sun. But necessary I suppose; because without darkness there is no light. In other words, without the backdrop of events like the Rwandan genocide or the prisoner abuse scandals, we might not see the need for action in places like Darfur in Sudan. Without the historical disenfranchisement of women and African-Americans in the United States, we might not feel compelled to speak out on behalf of the civil rights being denied our brothers and sisters in the gay and lesbian communities. So perhaps those who generally stand against change, reform, and progress as a matter of principle in our society do have a function. Perhaps they do have a place.
So forgive me for striking out with the same rhetoric for which many progressives/ liberals/whatever-you-feel-comfortable-withs like myself have criticized the president for using from time to time. But if you are not with the perpetual and rather inevitable march toward social change and progressive reform, then you first have some dictionary-ing to do. Secondly, you're playing for the wrong team. So come talk to us frankly, using honest language. You'll soon find out that we stand for much more than simply what conservatives do not. In fact, you'll find that it is actually the other way around.
