The Lone Liberal -- Unmasking Illiberalism

February 15, 2005 What's in a name?
"Liberal"? "Conservative"?
Whatever happened to "truth in labeling"?
Part I
An old Chinese proverb states "the beginning of wisdom lies in calling things by their right name." That particular beginning is often sidestepped by the most public voices on both sides of today's liberal versus conservative debate, as well as by those who dismiss it all as much ado about nothing -- as "just labels."
There actually is not as much ado as there should be, for it is not only about something, but about something very important. Wisdom begins with calling things by their right name, i.e., in getting the labels right. "Truth in Labeling" laws are necessary because unscrupulous marketers practice deception in labeling.
Incredibly, the worst snake oil peddlers from earlier times would never dare stoop to the lying labels of today's politicians and political advocates. Not only do modern-day hucksters misrepresent in their own labeling, they deliberately put false labels on the competition. Going even further, getting more subtle, more devious, and more dangerous, they invade the very mindset of the culture -- its "ideology" -- to change the very meaning of the words people seek on labels to identify both the general contents and their individual ingredients.

" Ideology" is right up there with " liberal" and " conservative" among the labeling words certain politicians and media folk should have on their "look it up" vocabulary lists. I looked them up way back in yesteryear, and learned this about myself:
Philosophically, I am a liberal.
Ideologically, I am a Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots fan.
Ideology refers to a group mindset. It is not a personally conceived thing, but the set of ideas and values held by a group, culture, or subculture. It is what the herd thinks and what the herd presents to its individual members as correct thinking. "Philosophy," on the other hand, is an individual's deliberate thoughtful choice of what the world is all about and what to do about it.
Ideology is a good thing, a functional necessity for human society to work. Even the most philosophical individuals willingly adopt and conform to some ideology. It is not mindless surrender, but convenient submission to group wisdom within reasonable bounds. We all drive on the same side of the road and go along in varying levels with certain conventions of dress, language and mannerisms because it works. Admittedly (and proudly), I run with the herd with abandon for my Red Sox and Patriots (well… except for the face and body paint). I soared in ecstatic delirium in the Pats and Sox Championships of 2004 and now 2005 (and do indeed believe the Sox will hold up their part in 2005 just like the Pats did). It's why I agree with my Massachusetts neighbors that the Massachusetts Border Patrol should do more to keep Yankee fans from slipping into our state, using our services, sending their kids to our schools, and taking our jobs…. A tad extreme? Of course, but not at all inappropriate because sports is all about play and fantasy. It's a stage separated from the real world, and going nuts is what fans do.
It's also what lynch mobs do, along with ideologically-driven "liberals" and "conservatives." I know no folks who would knowingly brag about letting the mob rule their thinking on serious matters. Still that is what people are saying when they refer to their "personal ideology." It is difficult to give credence to someone who claims to be a "thinking" liberal or conservative when the very word they use to describe their thinking means it is simply what everyone around them thinks. The irony is that when they say that, they are probably right.
Sometimes ideology evolves spontaneously from the culture as people simply find ways to communicate and cooperate for the common good. At other times it is created and managed as the deliberate strategic effort of a few who have their own reasons to manipulate the crowd, sometimes legitimately. It is what leaders and managers do. Organizational managers really manage the culture of their organizations, instilling the organizational values in its members. Public relations people, and marketing specialists all work to steer a culture's values. So do advocates of social causes and -- of course -- politicians.
Intelligent people keep their heads up, using their own good sense, personal taste, and moral compass as they feel themselves drawn into the crowd movements. Their philosophy will screen the ideology for junk. Those with personal integrity won't be drawn into simple acceptance. Those with courage will not only stand firm on principle, but speak out in resistance to what they see as wrong and harmful. Heroes will point always to the truth even when it exposes the illusions, delusions and lies among friends and allies -- and they will pay the price for that nobility.
It is especially sinister when that "price" is not just the instinctive mob response, but the calculated prescribed punishment of unscrupulous idiologues who have harnessed ideological power to suffocate not only those who speak out, but dare to think independently. It is in understanding this that one comes to understanding of what is "liberal" and what is "illiberal," what is "conservative" and what is "unconservative." -- and to realize that "conservative" and "liberal" are not necessarily polar opposites.
We should know the difference between "ideology" and "philosophy" because just understanding those terms helps us talk to one another about how ideas form, and how some might manipulate our thinking. Similarly, it is critical to understand that the words, "liberal" and "conservative," are far more than labels to identify what contemporary political group we run with. Again, some still maintain -- as I said above -- that it is indeed much ado about nothing -- "only semantics," as some might put it. A common argument is that definitions change, and I should simply accept whatever the modern definitions are of "liberal" and "conservative,"
When people say "modern" or "contemorary" because they think it's all about time, a matter of replacing old defintions with new -- usually with no idea at all that the terms are still there today in other places on the planet beyond the U.S. political stage. Such people miss the point that such "modern" meanings burn bridges to not only all historical events and persons which logically often justify their very positions, but even to such events and persons in the contemporary world beyond the American political stage:

Historically, Christ was killed by conservatives because of his liberal views, and the following things were brought about by liberals over conservative resistance: the U.S. Revolution (Tories were conservatives), the end to slavery (abolitionists were liberals), the end of segregation (segregationists were conservative, integrationists liberal).
In Russia and China, conservatives are communist while liberals preach democracy. Islamic fundamantalists (especially terrorists) are purely conservative -- not a liberal bone in their bodies.
This is not to say in any way that self-professed "conservatives" on today's American political stage are in the mold of historic conservatives. In fact, it is to say that they are not, and that is why the modern use of the "liberal" and "conservative" labels is just plain wrong! Fact is, it is not the postions we take that make us liberal or conservative. It is, rather, the intellectual approaches individuals take in arriving at those positions -- their individual philosophies -- which indicate whether they are liberal or conservative. There is another alternative, that of possessing no individual philosophy.
In Part II, we will look at the heart of the matter -- the difference between liberal and conservative philosophies. For the moment, consider this one thought. There are as many perspectives on the same object issues, facts, or ideas as there are people. Thinking people will therefore differ in what they see, and consequently in what they conclude. It is almost statistically impossible for complete agreement on all issues among thinking people in any group of any appreciable size. Yet group agreement does occur, and it is clear evidence of the power of ideology over philosophy. i.e., that such persons may be neither conservative nor liberal but simply ideological robots.

Return to Top