Word Games
I am wondering if the labels "conservative" and "liberal" are such a good thing anymore. This pondering began some time ago, but it was renewed when a comment arrived (for some reason, this comment would not publish, but I replied to the comment via e-mail). Here is what the person who commented had to say:
'Why do certain folks describe themselves as conservatives, in this day and age when there is nothing left to conserve?
Certainly one does not want to define onesself by ideology, as Russell Kirk repeatedely warms in his surveys such as The Conservative Mind. Kirk and his paleo friends WERE conservatives, because back then there was something intact and worthy of conservation.
Today that's not the case.
Today, one must describe oneself as a reactionary, or a counter-revolutionary. Today's conservatives are the enemy.'
Of course, there are today still some things worth conserving: What's left of the checks-and- balances of our three branches of government; our Constitution; free elections, to name some of these things. Predictably, there are a few perils on the horizon. There is the ever-present danger of a Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution is unconstitutional (don't laugh too loudly). It is beyond possible and now probable that Congress will completely abdicate all its collective responsibilities of oversight, thus setting the stage for a "King" to take up residence in the White House. We may eventually surrender all of our legislative and judicial authority to a world body that is not accountable for its decisions (can you say UN?).
But, for now, there is still something worthy of conserving. The main task is to hang on to what we still have, then reclaim what has been given away or snatched from our hands.
So maybe the labels, "liberal" and "conservative" are only word games. Perhaps they are terms guaranteed to push emotional buttons, such as during the fiasco when the U.S. House of Representatives voted on CAFTA . You may recall that, during the voting, the "conservative" Republicans basically said, Hey, if the liberals are against it, we've got to be for it!
A better term for "conservative" might be "Constitutionalist."
'Why do certain folks describe themselves as conservatives, in this day and age when there is nothing left to conserve?
Certainly one does not want to define onesself by ideology, as Russell Kirk repeatedely warms in his surveys such as The Conservative Mind. Kirk and his paleo friends WERE conservatives, because back then there was something intact and worthy of conservation.
Today that's not the case.
Today, one must describe oneself as a reactionary, or a counter-revolutionary. Today's conservatives are the enemy.'
Of course, there are today still some things worth conserving: What's left of the checks-and- balances of our three branches of government; our Constitution; free elections, to name some of these things. Predictably, there are a few perils on the horizon. There is the ever-present danger of a Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution is unconstitutional (don't laugh too loudly). It is beyond possible and now probable that Congress will completely abdicate all its collective responsibilities of oversight, thus setting the stage for a "King" to take up residence in the White House. We may eventually surrender all of our legislative and judicial authority to a world body that is not accountable for its decisions (can you say UN?).
But, for now, there is still something worthy of conserving. The main task is to hang on to what we still have, then reclaim what has been given away or snatched from our hands.
So maybe the labels, "liberal" and "conservative" are only word games. Perhaps they are terms guaranteed to push emotional buttons, such as during the fiasco when the U.S. House of Representatives voted on CAFTA . You may recall that, during the voting, the "conservative" Republicans basically said, Hey, if the liberals are against it, we've got to be for it!
A better term for "conservative" might be "Constitutionalist."