Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, January 5, 1993 TAG: 9301050437
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CLAYTON BRADDOCK
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
`LIBERAL,' `CONSERVATIVE' IDEOLOGICAL LABELS HAVE LOST THEIR MEANING
WE ARE still bobbing in the heavy wake of the dearly departed 1992 presidential campaign, what The New York Times' William Safire called "the late political unpleasantness."The names are gone, but the poison of political labels is left behind. They may kill us yet.
Labels take on the appearance of substance, looking more like wood than varnish. The worst of the lot are "conservative" and "liberal." Their pollution can do great harm to the ecology of our democracy.
American society has made a fair start at pointing out the pain, not to speak of the stupidity, of some labels - the epithets of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality or religion. Yet we are still enamored of the illogic of labels, particularly those like "conservative" and "liberal."
The whole process begins to look like a kind of low-key ethnic cleansing.
Individuals standing at each end of the political spectrum too commonly fire salvos of hate and distrust at the other end, not out of reason or need but useless, meaningless nomenclature, not about things that really matter but about economic or political views of the world. Such abstract labels have taken on the character of ideology, therefore immune to challenge or change.
As the nation and the world has closed the gap between the Industrial Revolution and the 21st century, we seem to be slowly sliding into another kind of political swamp.
The swamp may be more dangerous to the national political health than the gridlock attacked by all three candidates in the 1992 presidential campaign.
As we have moved from ankle deep in the swamp to something closer to the belt buckle, the nation - including the electorate and leadership - is arguing more about how we spend our money than taking responsibility for solving problems.
Therein lies the greatest challenge of them all. Those labels have been redesigned as political monuments, much like golden idols intended more for worship rather than education or citizenship.
Labels are convenient because they loom large, and can even be painted in bright colors and decorated with the bunting of tradition. As structures for human habitation, they rest on shallow foundations. As structures meant for shelter in time of storm, the concepts of "conservative" and "liberal" don't do well in the rain. They no longer explain the things about which people are most concerned, including how to survive. They certainly don't hold up as well as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.
The nation may not, as some say, be in a steep decline direct to hell. But it may be consigned to the swamp for a long time unless we begin to focus more on a combination of problem-solving and communication. Inevitably, the instruments of both will be political. We cannot be too pragmatic. And we cannot fall back too often or too quickly on ancient philosophical notions, much of the sharpness of which has been worn down to the status of cliche or euphemism.
The real challenge is to shape self interest into mutual interest. Most Americans, a savvy lot for sure, know too well that labels like "conservative" and "liberal" obscure the path to common ground.
The word "conservative" may describe certain aspects of one person's political position. But it hardly describes the other dimensions of that individual's character, historical perspective and humanity. Today, "liberal" may mean one thing to a believer and another to the person comfortable lobbing political grenades from the other end of the political spectrum.
Attaching each human being with little more than a label is no more valuable to the inner person than the cotton patch sewn into the inside of a shirt collar.
Liberals can be tight with a dollar. Conservatives support some social causes. Some liberals have launched and supported wars as well as Barry Goldwater, the man Lyndon Johnson defeated in his race for the presidency on a platform of peace. Conservatives spend tax dollars with as much fervor as liberals. George Bush spent the taxpayer's dollars, not just as if it were going out of style but because it did go almost out of style.
In Nat Hentoff's new book, "Free Speech for Me - But Not For Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other," the author is critical of liberals who so vigorously support a woman's right to choose that they try to gag right-to-lifers. This may be the ultimate in flying the righteous, bunting-covered label.
Bernard Weisberger, writing in the September issue of American Heritage magazine, said "both [political] parties accepted the reality of a strong national government with an overpowering impact on the economy through both expenditure and policy. And neither one can afford, politically, to avoid continuing federal engagement in promoting and sustaining the general welfare, the well-being of `the people' through an infinite variety of existing social programs."
One of the terrible ironies in all the hoopla on the political battlefield is that some ideologues view politics as just a game, a bloody game to be fought not because it is a rightful cause but to win for their side.
Perhaps it is inevitable that we attach labels to some political thoughts and causes just as we must attach names to our children. And perhaps we must have political operatives to justify and defend the political thoughts, the names and the dirty tricks that come bubbling out of the game we call politics.
Otherwise, how would people know which army to join and which uniforms fit better and have more brass and braid?
Clayton Braddock is an assistant professor of journalism at Radford University.