We are already rapidly becoming inundated with presidential political campaign programs, pundit commentary, solicitation phone calls, unsolicited postal mail, and email spam. And the election is well over a year off. Does anything anyone is saying today really matter enough to invade our daily lives to this extent so early? I doubt many would answer yes to that question. But I am going to try to do my part to bring some perspective to this ever longer silly season for the purpose of helping us all remember that what we hear from so many sources is often not even close to meaning what our language definitions have supposedly taught us to understand.
First, I am providing a link to three party platform drafts of the major political organizations that take the time, trouble and expense to select and appoint delegates and host conventions in some major city in the nation. There are more party classifications and organizations than this, but most of them are very loosely organized, if at all, and most of them have such small memberships that they wield virtually no influence in the national political arena.
I have actually slogged through each of the party platforms listed in the following links. It was painful and not very informative. If one endeavors to measure the platforms against actual performance and conduct, it very quickly feels like a complete waste of time. Add to that fact that there are a lot of pages in two of the three (the Libertarian platform document is mostly just a brief bullet point list), enough in fact that each platform document is loaded with contradictory statements. Do the authors actually read these things and contemplate what they have written? On could make a pretty convincing argument that they must not bother to proof or review their rambling, ambling draft very carefully.
But if you care or dare, here they are, based on what they claimed they cared about and planned to do as of the 2008 political season.
American Political Party Platforms:
Now, then, if you made yourself suffer through all of that cloudy reading, and I certainly cannot blame you if you decided not to, take a little time to ponder the following definitions, extracted straight from the dictionary. You will find that if you study these definitions in context with how they are used in political writing and discussions, you will consequently be better informed and equipped to evaluate and often wisely refute much of the prattle you will be reading and hearing leading up to November 2012. It will become frustratingly clear that liberties are routinely taken with all these words in ways that are not even close to what they mean. I would guess that self-identifying conservatives might ponder a little more carefully how they choose to be regarded if they take to heart the full meaning of that term. Who would want to be considered a stick-in-the-mud sort of person who doesn’t want change no matter the circumstance?
I also want to believe that anyone who studies the definition of the word liberal would surely hope that the characteristics it implies are far more positive than not. I would think most anyone wants to believe they are regarded as the kind of individual who values freedom, is supportive of positive change, recognizes the importance of progress in the development and growth of any society, for some examples. According to the definition of ‘liberal’, if you believe all that, you are one! I hope that doesn’t hurt your feelings.
Taken literally, a self-avowed conservative would want regulations and restrictions that represent the current status quo and often were the product of the very political operatives they claim to identify with and support, and liberals would advocate eliminating and removing as many of them as possible due to their interference with personal freedoms! Does that sound line what is being touted by either group today?
So once again, read the definitions over, and look them up yourself to satisfy any concern that I might not have presented them accurately enough.
Definitions of words and terms commonly used in political writing and conversations:
CONSERVATIVE –
Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
CONSERVATISM –
The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
LIBERAL –
Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by government protection and civil liberties.
LIBERALISM –
A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
LIBERTARIAN –
Advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty, maintaining the doctrine of free will.
INDEPENDENT –
A person who votes for candidates, measures, etc., in accordance with his or her own judgment and without regard to the endorsement of, or the positions taken by any party.
Now that you are at least as wise and informed as this author on these matters, let’s review a few notable incongruent ideas. I have made a point of observing the conflict between the claims and actual conduct of individuals who insist they strongly identify with any specific political ideology. The most glaring examples seem to relate to the extreme inverse relationship between demands for freedom and independence compared to the broad and deep dependencies these same individuals embrace in their daily lives.
For example, the louder the demand for rugged individualism by some, the more likely they are on the receiving end of numerous entitlement programs for their livelihood and survival. Farmers who claim to be conservatives are receiving huge subsidies from the government to keep their farms financially viable. People carry signs at demonstrations with nonsensical slogans such as “Tell the Government to keep its hands off my Medicare”. Politicians who claim to support and advocate for conservative social policies are themselves on the government tit to the point of scandal with their own designed retirement plans, medical coverage, etc. Most of these people do not seem to listen to their own voices; otherwise they would surely recognize the inconsistencies in their words. Or, maybe not.
An important concern that we should all share is that if the people we allow to lead and manage our government do not even bother to use language precisely and correctly in their proclamations about what should be our future course for the greater good of the nation, how can we then arrive at sound decisions regarding who best can serve the national need and do the work they are charged with completing?
I for one think it might be time to call them out when they are perched on their stump in the midst of their lofty orations and ask them to share their understanding of these key defining terms sprinkled throughout their rhetoric. Of course, that means that I will have to commit to being present where they make appearances that we commoners have access to. And then I need to take the lead in raising my hand and asking them on the spot to explain what they mean when they say “conservative”, or “liberal”, or any other term that is supposed to be a platform definer.
I’ve never done that before…probably time I did. Hope to see you there.
