ABOUT THE (MIS)USE OF TERMINOLOGY IN POLITICAL RHETORIC

I believe in "democratic" government.  I am "conservative" by nature and "liberal" with my time, energy and limited resources. Apart from politics, I think that the majority of us share similar personal virtues and no single one of those philosophical qualities completely defines us.

It is pertinent to note here that I have never aligned with a particular political party, choosing instead to vote for candidates on the basis of character and qualifications.  In the end, I accept the will of the majority and allow for the fact that there is no perfect government, just as there is no perfect politician.

The reason I mention the above is that I have increasingly heard those same terms spewed out in a political context, and not in a complimentary way.  In the United States, ‘liberal’ is often used as an epithet. To some degree, the terms ‘neo-liberal’ or ‘social conservative’ or ‘socialist’ are also used as negative descriptors in Canada.

Certain acquaintances in the USA, for instance, are extremely vocal in condemning "bleeding heart liberals" for everything that is wrong with their country.  A closer look at American politics reveals that historically liberalism has been associated with the Democratic Party while the Republican Party is influenced by conservative principles.

Part of the problem with the word ‘liberal’ is it’s used differently across time, and across countries. In Canada, the word mostly means a supporter of the Liberal Party, or someone in the political middle. In the United States, it means a strong social progressive, and in some circles can mean a socialist or a communist. In Europe it’s associated with internationalism and free migration. In Australia, in the words of Australian Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull, it means the primacy of “freedom, the individual, and the market.”  (That last one, the Australian definition, is probably closest to what political scientists consider a classical liberal view.)

The concepts of liberalism, both classical and modern, are political philosophies and ideologies not specific political affiliations, and these concepts, among others, influence parties across the Canadian spectrum.

To my mind it is not particularly helpful to use philosophical terminology as a pejorative, or to try and sum up a person’s character or values with a snippy line about liberals, conservatives, socialists, or anarchists.

I worry that sometimes we throw out terminology as weapons and rhetorical jabs when aggressively expressing political views. Understand that behind all of the different perspectives and ideologies, there’s some claim to justice there. And even if I disagree in large measure with much of what’s being said, there is some truth that is being expressed. There’s something good in it. As good as it is to be engaged in politics and to really care about what’s happening, it’s also good to step back sometimes and to understand that when we use terms like conservative, liberal, progressive, socialist, they’re all reflecting a certain claim to justice, and there’s probably something in each of those that we can agree with.

If we could only understand that behind all the terms we throw around to describe people, there is a rich intellectual history, we could have more respectful and constructive political debate.