I have on multiple occasions bemoaned the decline (demise?) of the English language. We've been losing terms and, with them, concepts. The language has been evolving because, well, it is a living language, but it hasn't necessarily been improving. It has been dropping important ideas, obscuring important realities and further deterring communication. I ran across another prime example. It's appropriate at the moment. And the good news is it's not about "marriage", homosexual sin, or even Reformed theology! Woohoo!! The bad news, I suppose, is that it's about politics ... and religion.
Every functioning conservative knows that the "enemy" (using the term loosely) is "liberals". Those darned liberals will be the end of us all. Indeed, most liberals don't like being labeled with the term. It appears to be an epithet primarily applied by conservatives. So we are all pretty sure that "liberal" is not intended as a compliment.
Well, let's take a moment on that. Years ago my then junior-high-aged son came home from public school excited. "Dad," he said, "I finally learned the difference between a liberal and a conservative!" "Oh? What's that?" "My teacher told me that liberals want to share with everyone and conservatives just want to keep their own." Indeed, that is a popular perspective, is it not? I keep hearing that same concept offered by the Democratic Party these days. "The Republican platform is 'I have mine; you're on your own.' Well, the Democrats think we're all in this together!" (Wild cheers from the crowd.) Of course, I had to explain to my son that he had been the victim of a lie, but where did it come from? Quite clearly it came from the word.
From the dictionary,
"Liberal adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression."
Okay, now running with the dictionary definitions, what do we find? Liberals "favor progress", advocate "liberalism", favor the "maximum individual freedom possible", and favor "permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief". By inference, then, "conservative" would be opposing progress, denying freedom, and disrespecting matters of personal belief. Now you tell me; which side is good and which is bad?
Wait! It gets worse! One helpful way to figure out what a term means is by the synonyms available for it. So for "liberal" we find, "Progressive, broad-minded, unprejudiced, beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous."
Oh, that's helpful. So the antonyms beyond "conservative" are "reactionary, intolerant".
See? It's all clear now. You may have thought that "liberal" was a bad thing, but what does that make you? You're narrow-minded, prejudiced, stingy, selfish! That, my friends, is "conservative". Who wants to be conservative? I know I don't!
The problem, of course, is that these terms do not rightly reflect the concept of liberalism, the ideas trying to be put across by the use of the term. Liberalism, for instance, favors "individual rights", but not for all individuals. Taxation for the rich, for instance, must be massively higher than taxation for those with less. Rich individuals are not to be afforded the same rights as those with less. Liberalism encourages religious tolerance. Thus, being intolerant of Muslims, for instance, is wrong. Being intolerant of Christians is acceptable. (Isn't it odd that so many liberals rise to the defense of Muslims and then deride conservative Christians as being too much like Muslims?) Liberalism is very much about limited government. Except, of course, where big (and apparently ever-growing) government is required to accomplish the goals. In one definition of liberalism I find my biggest problem with it: "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority." Beyond the political theory, liberalism is found in religion, such as " A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology."
So, let's see if we have this right now. A liberal is one who advocates liberalism. Liberalism is based on the belief that people are basically good. It de-emphasizes dogmatic theology (which would be necessary if you're going to go with "people are basically good") and encourages "limited government" when it serves the purpose and not when it doesn't and "individual rights" when the rights in question belong to the larger block of voters, but not the rights of the smaller numbers of people outside their favor. It is "generous" in the sense that it plans to take from those who have more in order to give to those who do not have as much. It fundamentally "emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority" and "the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions."
Wow! That's not at all what the first definitions of "liberal" suggested, was it? And this was my point. The term means one thing and the way it is carried out is another thing and the two seem to be completely unrelated. Every Christian ought to be identified as "liberal" in the sense of giving, caring, generous, tolerant, freedom-loving, even limited government. But the word and the concepts have so devolved that the language doesn't get that across anymore. And we're not paying attention, so we don't get that. (And as I had to explain to my son, "conservative" does not mean, "I have mine; you're on your own.")
8 comments:
So, it appears with this post and past posts, you are bemoaning how language is changing ("marriage" doesn't mean marriage anymore, alas and alack, etc) EXCEPT when you disagree with dictionary definitions, THEN you want to change the definitions to something Else?
Do you see the problem there?
The definition of "liberal" is indeed, an apt one in how it is used today, generally speaking.
I will say that "conservative" on the other hand, does not appear in the real world today to have much to do with "conserving," as the dictionary defines it, except insofar as conserving a particular religious/cultural status quo. But it doesn't appear to be in favor of conserving the environment or of being prudent when it comes to military adventurism.
Dan, why do you read my blog? Is it simply because "Someone is wrong on the Internet ... and it's always Stan!!"? Clearly it's not because you have any desire to understand.
My complaint is, was, has always been that words mean something. They are symbols for a reality. When the symbols no longer match the reality, then communication becomes difficult (at best). "Marriage" has changed, but no one is offering a new term to express the old meaning. "Liberal" has changed, but those who are "liberal" are going to try to stand on the old meaning while embracing a new one.
Never mind. I know. Stan is wrong again. So you will swoop in and fix it with your keen logic and deep love of God's Word. Or maybe those are more words that mean something different to me than they do to you.
I's good to be careful when reading that word, Liberal. Anyone use to reading old books had better or it could be confusing. It's also good to pay close attention when reading material from other countries. It seems that conservatives, like say in a communist system, want to conserve communism, and liberals want to be liberated from it.
Again it seems Dan has read the first paragraph and reacted. I thought it was quite clear you were arguing that the definition of "liberal" has changed from the dictionary to the popular. Gay, marriage, love, all examples of the same problem. We have an old definition that gets supplanted by a popular one, and we are left with no word for the original definition. Your argument is consistent with your previous posts.
Though I still use the term "liberal" when referring to leftists, I am trying harder to simply say "leftist" or "lefties" due to the actual meaning of the word "liberal" not really describing them best. They are, however, definitely center-left. Another good word to use for them would be "wrong", but that could get confusing as well.
Marshall, at least we still have words to get across what we mean by "liberal" (like "leftist" or even "wrong"). No such luxury with terms like "love" or "marriage".
Dan (not the Trabue type), it's an interesting attack strategy. Take a word that means "x". Shift the word. Use the word to mean something new while referring to "x". Now, having maintained the focus on the word, not too many notice the changed meaning.
I've watched it in the political ads. "This extremist wants to deny women health care!" Well, hold on. We all know the phrase "women's health care". It means "health care" ... "for women". You're saying he wants to remove their health care??!! No. Not really. He simply wants to save the life of the baby she intends to murder. Not the same thing. But by using a common phrase and shifting the meaning, you create an attack that isn't fair or reasonable. Like the word "liberal".
Yeah, we need to be careful with that. (It is, by definition, a relative term.) But we need to keep people informed, too. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
yes Stan, and I can show you a cat with 9 tales... or is it tails?
Post a Comment