Classical Values :: Definitions are swallowing thought!

June 03, 2004

Definitions are swallowing thought!

An article in the Christian Science Monitor points out that only seven percent of journalists will dare to call themselves conservatives. Examining the Pew Research study itself, I am more than a little annoyed that the only choices given are liberal, conservative, moderate, and "don't know."

Were I asked to measure myself this way, I'd be hard pressed to supply an answer.

Editor and Publisher offers a little more breakdown:

At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

So, why no "libertarian" category? Despite the fact that they don't include one, there's this intriguing tidbit:

In an essay accompanying the survey, the directors of the sponsoring groups -- Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell --declare that broad conclusions about the political findings should be tempered by analyzing some of the details in the findings. For example, they identify strong "libertarian" leanings among journalists, including doubts about the role of "big government."

Why analyze? Why didn't they just ask? If you find this as inexplicable as I do, read the comments on the study by Pew's own people:

....[W]hat does liberal mean to journalists? We would be reluctant to infer too much here. The survey includes just four questions probing journalists' political attitudes, yet the answers to these questions suggest journalists have in mind something other than a classic big government liberalism and something more along the lines of libertarianism. More journalists said they think it is more important for people to be free to pursue their goals without government interference than it is for government to ensure that no one is in need.

This libertarian strain is particularly strong among local journalists, who are also more likely to describe themselves as moderate.

More research here is probably useful.

But forget about more research; in what passes for political dialogue these days, people are being forced to define themselves as liberal or conservative based on little more than their opinion of what people do with their genitals. If you think I'm exaggerating, read the study; homosexuality is portrayed as an all-defining core issue. If you think homosexuality should be "accepted," you're a liberal! If you think it should be "discouraged," you're a conservative!

Has the penis become America's political yardstick?

If so then why? No reason whatsoever is given. Why not guns? Taxation? Crime? Multiculturalism? The war in Iraq?

While I think the percentage of conservatives in the blogosphere is considerably higher than in the mainstream press, most likely the word "libertarian" would be self-applied by an even higher percentage. And I don't think most bloggers particularly want liberalism and conservatism reduced to the issue of where a man ought to be placing his penis. (At least I hope not.)

Part of this depends, of course, on the definition of "journalist." There's also the stubborn issue of defining conservatism. I am wholly unable to define myself as a conservative, because I will be called a liar and a RINO by those who claim a monopoly over that label. Plus, if definitions are arrived at with reference to other people, well, I know that I don't agree with many of the people who call themselves conservative, so how can I be one of them? (A very stimulating discussion of this issue can be found here; the only thing I'd add to it is that Barry Goldwater would today be a South Park Republican, because his principles of freedom and small government, while once conservative, are increasingly derided by those who have transformed conservatism into big government social engineering, fueled by culture war politics and ad hominem attacks.)

But if I call myself a liberal, the same thing happens. They'll say I'm not, plus I hate socialism, anti-Americanism, and nihilistic deconstructionism. (The term "classical liberal" is largely meaningless today, because liberalism now means more big government social engineering, fueled by culture war politics and ad hominem attacks.)

So where does that leave me? I keep taking online tests which report that I'm a libertarian, but then there are people claiming that label too, who'll say you're not a "real" libertarian unless you agree with them that the war in Iraq is wrong. They'll call you a "pseudo-libertarian." Or (better yet) an "ersatz libertarian gay-friendly hawk."

There's no winning with definitions. They're at the heart of the Culture War, and they are meant to divide us, make us hate each other, and above all else, prevent us from being allowed to simply think what we think. Instead, by these rhetorical, ad hominem-based sleights of hand, we are all told that we must think what others think, and get on one "side" or the other of the social engineering bandwagon. (Without stopping to wonder whether something's wrong with the whole concept of social engineering in a free country.)

Anyway, forgive me for not being terribly impressed by the Pew study, and its rather lame attempt to expand the length and breadth of penis politics.

Once again, the Culture War sucks!

UPDATE: I should add that the Pew Research Center is decidedly liberal. This means that not only do they have a liberal bias, but they have an even stronger bias which they share with conservatives: that politics is divided into liberal or conservative, as defined by liberals and conservatives. This is about as logical as it would be for Christians and Muslims to agree that the world is either Christian or Muslim, but we're not talking logic here. While enemies, liberals and conservatives are allies where it comes to the overarching need for political self-preservation. Hence, Culture War uber alles! Both sides agree on the need to take away certain freedoms, so whichever side wins, freedom is the constant loser.

If they win this war, the rest of us may yet be forced to "choose" between fundamentalism and Marxism. It hasn't happened yet -- but I'm getting worried.

posted by Eric on 06.03.04 at 02:53 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/1061

Comments

A corker!

Toby · June 4, 2004 12:35 AM

Fascinating. I'm gonna go to bed now. I'll comment tomorrow.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 4, 2004 02:50 AM

Fascinating. I love these spectrumological ruminations of yours. You are an independent thinker, an individualist, and thus hated by all the herd mentalities and party-liners.

I say: If you think homosexuality should be ERADICATED, then you are a RADICAL, a Communist. If you think homosexuality, homosexual marriages, the holy bond of homosexual wedlock, should be CONSERVED for all time and eternity, then you are a CONSERVATIVE and Extreme(ly) Right.

I love the word "conservative" or "Conservative". I refuse to surrender it to my enemies. I love the shapes of the letters in the word. So encircling, so feminine. That letter "C". "Conservative", "Captive", "Captivating", "Clitoris". I always think of holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma whenever I see that word. Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology.

"Liberal" or "Libertarian" makes me think of "Libertine", i.e., wicked Wanda and her women (Wendy, Cindy, Sandy, Candy, Brandy, Brenda, Glenda, Stella, and Hannah).

According to the Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (1993), those calling themselves "Ultra-Conservative" were most likely to view sado-masochism as "very normal". Conservatives value order, hierarchy, discipline. And those who saw themselves as "Very Religious" were most likely to agree that pain and pleasure go together in sex.

I found a number of new ideological spectrums and spectrum quizzes a few days ago. On one, I scored as "Anarchist", on another as "Traditional Conservative". Most interesting....

(Unfortunately, when I tried to re-take that World's Smallest Political Quiz, it froze my computer every time and I had to reboot so many times I lost count! There's some kind of bug in their program or something.)

I don't like that term "South Park Republican". Name myself after a political party and a TV show? For one thing, I don't watch TV anymore, I wouldn't even name myself after an _old_ show ("Leave It To Beaver"? "I Dream of Jeannie"? "Bewitched"?, "The Twilight Zone"?), and I certainly would never identify myself with any political party. My policy with regard to registering as a Republican or a Democrat is this: If the incumbent is a Democrat, then a bunch of Republicans will be running against him and so I look for the best or least objectionable of that bunch to vote for the nomination of in the primary [e.g., John McCain in 2000]. If the incumbent is a Republican, then a bunch of Democrats will be running against him and so I look for the best or least objectionable of that bunch to vote for the nomination of in the primary [e.g., Howard Dean in 2004]. This year, I may vote Libertarian even though they nominated yet another nutcake. I can't vote for Bush (i.e., for the FMA) and I can't stand Kerry.

One problem is that names of ideologies or ideological tendencies are also often names of political parties. In England, Liberal and Conservative have historically been the names of two of their historic parties, the Whigs and the Tories respectively, as well as the ideologies those parties have tended to embody. Today, the main opponent of the Tories is Labor, a.k.a. Socialist, though that party is no longer quite as socialist as it was before the Thatcher counter-revolution.

Here in America, you have to specify that you are a "small-d" democrat if you believe in populism and majority rule. Conversely, you have to specify that you are a "small-r" republican if you believe that America was intended to be a Constitutional republic. A few decades ago, those ideological tendencies correlated more or less with the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively, but no longer so at all. And you have to specify that you are a "small-l" libertarian if you want less government overall but do not subscribe to the entire platform of the Libertarian Party.

Related to this, I have long observed that certain terms refer to general ideological tendencies, orientations, or directions while others refer to specific ideologies as such, certain definite creeds. E.g.: We speak of someone as more or less to the Right or more or less to the Left, as more or less liberal (or "progressive") or more or less conservative (traditionalist, etc.), and also more or less libertarian (i.e., for reducing government interference to a greater or lesser degree). We do not speak of someone as more or less Communist, more or less Catholic, more or less Objectivist, etc..

Some confusion arises when attemps are made by certain ideologues to equate the former with the latter. If someone says, e.g., "I've become more liberal...", someone else will reply: "No, you're not! You still oppose more federal funding for quintilinguial education for left-handed Lithuanians in public schools! You're just another bigoted Neanderthal! Go back to reading Ann Coulter!"
Or, if someone says, "I've become more conservative as I've got older...", someone else will reply" "No, you're not! You still advocate letting green-tea drinking left-handed Lithuanians swim in our public swimming pools! You're a pink softie subversive masquerading as a true American! Go back to reading Maureen Dowd!"
Or, if someone says: "I've become more libertarian. I'm against gun control, for keeping government out of our bedrooms, and for cutting taxes and spending...", someone else will reply: "No, you're not! You're still against demunicipalizing the sidewalks in your town, privately-owned H-bombs, and letting kindergartners buy crack for nickels in vending machines. You repressive authoritarian totalitarian statist fascist monster! You also still believe in some mystic 'God' and everyone knows that's incompatible with libertarianism! Go back to heiling Hitler and Mao and voting for Nixon and reading Immanuel Kant!"

Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows. Interesting questions about it all.... Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... I love spectrums. Spectrums I do love. As far as labels go, I'm an individualist above all else. And individualists, by definition, do not think alike.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 4, 2004 04:42 PM

I didn't mean to imply that privately-owned sidewalks, highways, H-bombs, etc., would not be a noble ideal. It is, of course, a noble ideal, a good fantasy, but, at this point in time, and possibly for much of the next millennium or so, somewhat... impractical. Sorry. That's just the way it is.

President Nixon keeps coming back to my mind. My favorite President, or certainly the most INTERESTING, the most FASCINATING. The _STYLE!_ of that whole shebang. I keep thinking that it was under Nixon's reign that I discovered ideological spectrums, and, with those, Ayn Rand, and libertarian, conservative, and anti-Communist thought generally. The Libertarian Party started up under Nixon. Our friend Kim Eric Drexler (the father of nanotechnology -- give him a Google!) introduced me to libertarianism around that time.

The Libertarians introduced the Nolan spectrum in 1971, with its 2 dimensions of economic and personal freedoms.

The John Birch Society came out with their own spectrum, a 1-dimensional spectrum from total government on the Left to limited government on the Right to no government on the Far Right. I saw this spectrum in Gary Allen's "None Dare It Conspiracy", which was mailed to us by "a concerned American" in 1972.

Also in 1972, "MAD" magazine portrayed their own spectrum, visually depicting the _STYLES!_ of diverse ideologies from "New Left Extremists" to "Right Wing Militants". Write to "MAD" magazine and ask for a copy of thst spectrum!

And a little later, in a book "From Radical Left to Extreme Right", describing a vast spectrum of ideological magazines, I saw a reference to Samuel Brittan's "Left or Right: the Bogus Dilemma" (1968), in which he argued for a 3-dimensional spectrum of Egalitarianism vs. Elitism, Liberalism vs. Authoritarianism, Radicalism vs. Orthodoxy. I pined for that book for many decades, until I finally got a copy sent to me from Barnes & Noble (bn.com) on the Internet in 2000.

Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums.... Or spectra.

I didn't have any ideology at all under President Kennedy's reign. I was drawing space monsters, but I hadn't yet even discovered the Oz books, much less Egyptian mythology, much less Greek philosophy or any political theory. That all came later, under President Johnson's reign. In my junior high school years, I was a socialist, an admirer of Eugene V. Debs. My family were all liberal Democrats and I only had rare encounters with any ideas of the Right. I discovered Friedrich Nietzsche and Oswald Spengler, and the European Romantic tradition of the 19th century, which did move me to the Right in certain ways or on many spectra, but I still called myself a "socialist" until I discovered Rand. Long story after that. It wasn't until the last decade or so that I stopped calling myself a "radical" and started calling myself a "conservative".

Interesting about it all.... Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums....

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 5, 2004 03:32 PM

I must mention also that there was a quiz inthe "Senior Scholastic" magazine in 1972 that asked "How Liberal/Conservative Are You?" That was very interesting. I have a copy of it.

Also, in 1976, "Commentary" had a big symposium, "What Is A Liberal? Who Is A Conservative?"

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · June 5, 2004 08:53 PM