Political monikers and misinformation

[myp]

It seems like with each passing day, the use of political monikers are becoming a pet peeve of mine. I have found that words such as "conservative" or "liberal" or "socialist" or "libertarian", etc. tend to cause confusion. This is primarily because there are so many definitions that each of these words have because over time they have changed and been interpreted in different ways. There are tons of examples of- communism being a great one, as the Soviets' communism was different from what Marx sought. These labels often cause confusion in debate and it is something I have noticed even in this forum as two posters have very different ideas on what these labels stand for (I know me and Dirk have gone through this with terms like socialism.) Due to this ambiguity, I really think more people need to stop putting so much emphasis on the labels, and instead look more at the actual policies and issues. In the end the labels don't really matter anyway- it is what is done that affects the people and that is what should be looked at.

I am guilty of using these monikers as well, but I really think we need to stop placing so much power in the actual labels. This was something I've been thinking of for a bit and I just needed to rant a little bit. Thoughts?

 

[DodgeFB]

It seems like with each passing day, the use of political monikers are becoming a pet peeve of mine. I have found that words such as "conservative" or "liberal" or "socialist" or "libertarian", etc. tend to cause confusion. This is primarily because there are so many definitions that each of these words have because over time they have changed and been interpreted in different ways. There are tons of examples of- communism being a great one, as the Soviets' communism was different from what Marx sought. These labels often cause confusion in debate and it is something I have noticed even in this forum as two posters have very different ideas on what these labels stand for (I know me and Dirk have gone through this with terms like socialism.) Due to this ambiguity, I really think more people need to stop putting so much emphasis on the labels, and instead look more at the actual policies and issues. In the end the labels don't really matter anyway- it is what is done that affects the people and that is what should be looked at.

I am guilty of using these monikers as well, but I really think we need to stop placing so much power in the actual labels. This was something I've been thinking of for a bit and I just needed to rant a little bit. Thoughts?

I think it would be worth a try!

 

[Dirk]

Absolutely!

I usually end up having to explain my views or the term instead of the issue itself. Basically, everything turns into left vs right debate. Which gets tiresome.

 

[myp]

Absolutely!

I usually end up having to explain my views or the term instead of the issue itself. Basically, everything turns into left vs right debate. Which gets tiresome.

Exactly- this is a huge problem in modern politics and it really just leads to mindless debates about which party is better, when in reality it is the policy that matters. In reality, both parties have noticeable idealogical differences within themselves anyway.

 

[Dirk]

Exactly- this is a huge problem in modern politics and it really just leads to mindless debates about which party is better, when in reality it is the policy that matters. In reality, both parties have noticeable idealogical differences within themselves anyway.

Not to mention that it is really only the very weak minded that are defined by the parties they support. Most, if not all people have their own ideas, which do not necessarily correspond with the party they may support. That's not to say that by sheer coincidence, an idividual's ideals may be precisely those of a party.

 

[deanhills]

It seems like with each passing day, the use of political monikers are becoming a pet peeve of mine. I have found that words such as "conservative" or "liberal" or "socialist" or "libertarian", etc. tend to cause confusion.

I get the feeling that people are confused about politics in the United States, and labelling with those "monikers" just makes it that more challenging. For example what is "right wing"? Which groups do we associate with right wing? I wonder however whether we will ever be able to get away from it, as it seems to have become buzz words in the media and political blogs. When we use these "monikers" however we need to ask the person who is using them exactly what he/she means when they are using them. I'm almost certain that they will have difficulty to give a good explanation though. For some people right wing is the Republican Party. When you are discussing politics in the company of genuine right wingers they would probably regard the Republican Party as to the left. All very confusing!

 

[jfla]

It seems like with each passing day, the use of political monikers are becoming a pet peeve of mine. I have found that words such as "conservative" or "liberal" or "socialist" or "libertarian", etc. tend to cause confusion. This is primarily because there are so many definitions that each of these words have because over time they have changed and been interpreted in different ways. There are tons of examples of- communism being a great one, as the Soviets' communism was different from what Marx sought. These labels often cause confusion in debate and it is something I have noticed even in this forum as two posters have very different ideas on what these labels stand for (I know me and Dirk have gone through this with terms like socialism.) Due to this ambiguity, I really think more people need to stop putting so much emphasis on the labels, and instead look more at the actual policies and issues. In the end the labels don't really matter anyway- it is what is done that affects the people and that is what should be looked at.

I am guilty of using these monikers as well, but I really think we need to stop placing so much power in the actual labels. This was something I've been thinking of for a bit and I just needed to rant a little bit. Thoughts?

The biggest obstacle to defining political ideologies is the internet. Libertarians dominate the net far out of proportion to their actual number in the American population at large. And since the term liberal has such negative connotations in American politics the libertarians on the net usually insist that they are conservatives despite the fact that libertarianism has as much in common with the far left as it does conservatism. Few people on the net actually understand what conservatism (in the Anglo-American context) really is.

Although my college degree is in biology, I have been interested in politics for as long as I can remember and my biology degree comes with 40 credit hours in history. I am better versed on the subject of political ideology than most people on the net are and I have spent years trying to get people on the net to understand that socialism is not identical to communism and conservatism and libertarianism have mutually exclusive ideologies. I have prepared a rather detailed, but also a rather accurate, test to measure political ideologies, and I will post it in another thread.

 

[jfla]

Exactly- this is a huge problem in modern politics and it really just leads to mindless debates about which party is better, when in reality it is the policy that matters. In reality, both parties have noticeable idealogical differences within themselves anyway.

These ideological differences within parties help insure that parties are not united enough to effectively govern when they are in power. This may not always be a bad thing, but more often than not it allows public problems to fester and grow because the parties cannot muster the will to address them.

 

[myp]

The biggest obstacle to defining political ideologies is the internet. Libertarians dominate the net far out of proportion to their actual number in the American population at large. And since the term liberal has such negative connotations in American politics the libertarians on the net usually insist that they are conservatives despite the fact that libertarianism has as much in common with the far left as it does conservatism. Few people on the net actually understand what conservatism (in the Anglo-American context) really is.

Well, a lot of these assumptions are really based on what definition of conservatism, libertarianism, and liberal you use. If you look at the roots of conservatism in America, then you will attribute the word to small government, free markets, and anti-war policies (and those ideas are pretty in line with libertarianism.) If you look at modern interpretations of conservatism, you may be open to a larger state and more aggressive war policies (these views are of course not so in line with libertarianism.) It really depends on what definition of the word each person holds. That is really the point of this thread- that there are different interpretations of all of the monikers- from liberal to conservative to libertarian and it is this difference in interpretation that often causes confusion.

By the way, I am currently a biology major as well and of course I am also into politics as well (and hence a lot of my electives are also in the subject of econ/govt.)- nice to have someone from a similar background around

 

[jfla]

Well, a lot of these assumptions are really based on what definition of conservatism, libertarianism, and liberal you use.

That is my whole point. If you don't have hard and fast definitions for these terms, then these terms are meaningless.

If you look at the roots of conservatism in

America , then you will attribute the word to small government, free markets, and anti-war policies (and those ideas are pretty in line with libertarianism.)

You just proved my point. Conservatism implies nothing about the size of government, free markets or opposition to war. Libertarianism breeds chaos and chaos is the antithesis of conservatism. The goal of conservatism is to establish and maintain a stable, functional and self-perpetuating society. This means you cannot have mass concentrations of wealth or poverty or the power that comes with wealth. If it takes a large government and regulated markets and regulated wealth to achieve such a society, so be it.

If you look at modern interpretations of conservatism, you may be open to a larger state and more aggressive war policies (these views are of course not so in line with libertarianism.)

Historically speaking American conservatism has always been in favor of enough government to maintain order and promote economic expansion while maintaining law and order. The conservative Hamiltonians wanted a strong central government and a society based on urbanization and industry; the liberal Jeffersonians wanted a weak central government in a country that was heavily populated with farmers and plantation owners (who like Jefferson himself would usually be in debt).

 

[Dirk]

I am better versed on the subject of political ideology than most people on the net are and I have spent years trying to get people on the net to understand that socialism is not identical to communism and conservatism and libertarianism have mutually exclusive ideologies.

I know what you mean. Most of my own knowledge is self-attained, through literature and experience, though some is from Professor Davis, my lecturer. I quite enjoy mocking people with a label that, from an American perception, would appear oxymoronic.

I have prepared a rather detailed, but also a rather accurate, test to measure political ideologies, and I will post it in another thread.

I noticed. It was much fun. Too bad i can't be shoved into categories.

:giggle:

 

[myp]

You just proved my point. Conservatism implies nothing about the size of government, free markets or opposition to war. Libertarianism breeds chaos and chaos is the antithesis of conservatism. The goal of conservatism is to establish and maintain a stable, functional and self-perpetuating society. This means you cannot have mass concentrations of wealth or poverty or the power that comes with wealth. If it takes a large government and regulated markets and regulated wealth to achieve such a society, so be it.

I think we are really just proving each other's points . I say that because I do not agree with the idea that libertarianism breeds chaos since I believe authoritarianism can also breed chaos as figures such as Hitler and Mao Zedong proved. While I agree that conservatism seeks to create a self-perpetuating society, I also believe that other ideologies including libertarianism also try to do the same thing to an extent. I also believe that conservatism is not for excessive statism and so, I disagree with the idea that conservatism would support a large government if it could achieve a self-perpetuating society. Again, we just disagree on what policies should fall under what idealogy and a lot of that is because of the evolution of the language as well as the effect that different political actors have had on the meanings of these words. That is why so many people have different ideas on what each moniker truly means and it is also why I believe that we should try to refrain from using them if possible because in the end they really are ambiguous.

Historically speaking American conservatism has always been in favor of enough government to maintain order and promote economic expansion while maintaining law and order. The conservative Hamiltonians wanted a strong central government and a society based on urbanization and industry; the liberal Jeffersonians wanted a weak central government in a country that was heavily populated with farmers and plantation owners (who like Jefferson himself would usually be in debt).

By today's mainstream use of the words, Jefferson would not be a liberal and Hamilton not a conservative. Again, just proving the point that these words have changed so much that one really needs to clarify what exactly they mean when they use them (or just try to stop using them altogether.)

By the way, I moved the other part of this discussion into a new thread as you suggested: http://www.politicalfray.com/showthread.php?t=1001

 

[Dirk]

By today's mainstream use of the words, Jefferson would not be a liberal and Hamilton not a conservative. Again, just proving the point that these words have changed so much that one really needs to clarify what exactly they mean when they use them (or just try to stop using them altogether.)

I agree.

I read part some of Jefferson and Dewey (also a bit of Von Humboldt) aloud and my mum was convinced i was quoting some far-out leftist. And my family is German, with a strong left-wing tradition. All of us are socialists of some description or another.

 

[jfla]

While I agree that conservatism seeks to create a self-perpetuating society, I also believe that other ideologies including libertarianism also try to do the same thing to an extent.

My understanding of libertarianism, based on my experience on the net, tells me that libertarians favor dog-eat-dog economic competition in unregulated markets which means chaos and they reject the stabilizing influence of things like marriage and religion.

I also believe that conservatism is not for excessive statism and so, I disagree with the idea that conservatism would support a large government if it could achieve a self-perpetuating society.

Conservatives do not want large government just for the sake of large government. To a conservative the government must do whatever needs to be done to preserve society when the private sector cannot or will not do it.

By today's mainstream use of the words, Jefferson would not be a liberal and Hamilton not a conservative.

Which is why my political test tries to separate the meaning of each ideology from their historical and socio-economic trappings. I am striving for objective criteria to determine what the political labels mean so they can be used in every possible setting.

 

[myp]

My understanding of libertarianism, based on my experience on the net, tells me that libertarians favor dog-eat-dog economic competition in unregulated markets which means chaos and they reject the stabilizing influence of things like marriage and religion.

Religion has taken the lives of millions of people throughout history- I would hardly call it a stabilizing influence. I am not an atheist, but I do admit that religion has caused its fair share of problems.

As for libertarianism, the idea is not about "dog-eat-dog" competition, it is about freedom and having equality in process as opposed to equality in ends which is what egalitarianism seeks to do. Sure, this usually mean competition among people, but no matter how much markets are regulated, human nature still leads to humans competing against one another. Competition is not something to be afraid of and it certainly doesn't mean the world would be ruthless- there are still tons of good people out there who would be generous and helpful- the only difference is being helpful would be voluntary.

Conservatives do not want large government just for the sake of large government. To a conservative the government must do whatever needs to be done to preserve society when the private sector cannot or will not do it.

I don't see it that way. I think of conservatism from the paleoconservatives saw conservatism. I do not believe the ends justify the means and from that perspective, the coercion of big government can not be justified. But again, it depends on the definition of conservatism you use (because my ideas can also be considered classical liberalism and very different than neoconservatism.)

Which is why my political test tries to separate the meaning of e ach ideology from their historical and socio-economic trappings. I am striving for objective criteria to determine what the political labels mean so they can be used in every possible setting.

It is an interesting idea, but each of the monikers have had various meaning throughout history and different influences have changed the meanings to meet their needs at times so it would be a difficult task to do. Good luck though, it would be awesome if everyone could be on the same page for once in terms of monikers

 

[jfla]

Religion has taken the lives of millions of people throughout history- I would hardly call it a stabilizing influence.

That argument doesn?t hold water. Human nature sees to it that when left completely to their own devises to act in their own self-interest individual humans will lie, steal, cheat and kill, sack, maim, pillage and destroy. So to the extent that religion can regulate human nature by imposing a moral code of conduct on individuals, religion is a stabilizing force.

As for libertarianism, the idea is not about "dog-eat-dog" competition, it is about freedom and having equality in process as opposed to equality in ends which is what egalitarianism seeks to do.

In the absence of regulation by society or government or religion human nature dictates that you have dog-eat-dog competition between individual humans and this is the recipe for chaos. Human nature makes absolute freedom impossible; freedom must be regulated in order to exist for the greatest number of people. Since libertarians (at least most of the ones you encounter on the net) do not support the idea of regulated freedom, they are in favor of chaos; libertarians believe it is morally right for the strong to abuse the weak because they accept no societal, governmental or religious regulation of the strong.

Sure, this usually mean competition among people, but no matter how much markets are regulated, human nature still leads to humans competing against one another.

But regulated markets help insure that no participant in the markets can take advantage of any other participant in the market. Without pure food and drug laws we?d still have snake oil peddlers and meat packing plants selling rat meat. Without regulation of the auto industry we?d still have exploding gas tanks.

Competition is not something to be afraid of and it certainly doesn't mean the world would be ruthless- there are still tons of good people out there who would be generous and helpful- the only difference is being helpful would be voluntary.

But who in their right mind would want to be a victim of someone who is not among the ?tons of good people? that you claim are around? In the absence of legal regulation you will always be at the mercy of asymmetrical information, i.e., one party in an economic transaction will know more about the product or service being exchanged than the other party knows, thus the person with the most information could easily take advantage of the person with less information.

I don't see it that way. I think of conservatism from the paleoconservatives saw conservatism.

Conservatism is conservatism, pure and simple. There is nothing paleo or neo about it. If the term conservatism can be changed on a whim, the term is meaningless.

It is an interesting idea, but each of the monikers have had various meaning throughout history and different influences have changed the meanings to meet their needs at times so it would be a difficult task to do.

Various meanings by whose standards? If we can make up the meanings of the terms as we go along and leave it up to anyone and everyone to decide on what the meanings are, the meanings are worthless. Thus objective criteria are needed.

 

[myp]

[/font][/font][/color]

That argument doesn’t hold water. Human nature sees to it that when left completely to their own devises to act in their own self-interest individual humans will lie, steal, cheat and kill, sack, maim, pillage and destroy. So to the extent that religion can regulate human nature by imposing a moral code of conduct on individuals, religion is a stabilizing force.

So you think there can't be a moral code without religion? I personally know atheists who wouldn't hurt a fly or steal or commit any sins. I also know religious people who would. Religion is not a stabilizing force- morals and ethics are. Sure religion may bring those morals and ethics into the lives of some, but it is not needed for everyone.

In the absence of regulation by society or government or religion human nature dictates that you have dog-eat-dog competition between individual humans and this is the recipe for chaos. Human nature makes absolute freedom impossible; freedom must be regulated in order to exist for the greatest number of people. Since libertarians (at least most of the ones you encounter on the net) do not support the idea of regulated freedom, they are in favor of chaos; libertarians believe it is morally right for the strong to abuse the weak because they accept no societal, governmental or religious regulation of the strong.

You are describing anarchists, but even they believe that humans can be philanthropic and even altruistic at times. Very few sane people want pure chaos.

The thing with regulation is that overregulation is also bad- millions of people have died due to state-sponsored wars, religious crusades, and abuse through a system that still produces chaos- but just packages it up under the pretense of reducing chaos. Human nature does not change under regulation- you will have the good (morals, etc.) and the bad with or without regulation, so it is important to make sure the regulative forces don't have excessive power either.

Personally I do believe the state would help further justice through a legal system, but I do not believe it should overstep its boundaries by using excessive coercion when justice of process isn't even at stake.

But regulated markets help insure that no participant in the markets can take advantage of any other participant in the market. Without pure food and drug laws we’d still have snake oil peddlers and meat packing plants selling rat meat. Without regulation of the auto industry we’d still have exploding gas tanks.

No you wouldn't because the demand for those products would dip and competitors would produce safer options for people so that they could make more money. Sure it is out of self-interest, but the market fixes its self through that self-interest and in turn produces better results.

But who in their right mind would want to be a victim of someone who is not among the “tons of good people” that you claim are around? In the absence of legal regulation you will always be at the mercy of asymmetrical information, i.e., one party in an economic transaction will know more about the product or service being exchanged than the other party knows, thus the person with the most information could easily take advantage of the person with less information.

Free markets lead to the faster exchange of ideas and information. Regulation bottles up information into sectors, making it harder to spread things. As for being under the mercy of not one of the good people- that happens in a regulated world too with false pretenses and misinformation.

Conservatism is conservatism, pure and simple. There is nothing paleo or neo about it. If the term conservatism can be changed on a whim, the term is meaningless.

Languages evolve and so do political monikers. You can take your example and think that is what conservatism means set in stone, but in reality EVERYONE else in the world will never accept the same EXACT definition you have- no matter how hard you try.

Various meanings by whose standards? If we can make up the meanings of the terms as we go along and leave it up to anyone and everyone to decide on what the meanings are, the meanings are worthless. Thus objective criteria are needed.

Objective criteria is needed to create a definition that everyone agrees upon, but it would be very hard to get everyone to accept one definition after the years of mixed definitions. You can try, but its an uphill battle. Right now so many people have different opinions on these words because they are so vague and imply many things at the same time.

 

[Nemo]

Liberals and conservatives are all of a piece - all are the fools of prejudice. We all bring our own biases and prejudices (our own political philosophy, so to speak) to the public forum. To be disposed one way or the other may depend on many things; but, ultimately, it all depends on only one thing: ourselves. We would all do well to examine ourselves - the validity of our own dislikes and preferences - before we start labeling others.

 

[deanhills]

Liberals and conservatives are all of a piece - all are the fools of prejudice. We all bring our own biases and prejudices (our own political philosophy, so to speak) to the public forum. To be disposed one way or the other may depend on many things; but, ultimately, it all depends on only one thing: ourselves. We would all do well to examine ourselves - the validity of our own dislikes and preferences - before we start labeling others.

Doesn't labelling however start the moment we are born so that people can identify who we are? We get certain names bestowed on us, get our family's last name to show where we are coming from, then someone starts to say that we look like our father and act like our uncle. Our parents then start with a list of hopes and wishes they have for us, etc. etc. In a way that labelling/identity is something we feel safe with as well as we need to know who we are? I guess prejudice starts right there in this identification and labelling process, and so our battles with the labelling and prejudice also start at the same time. Trying to get away from how our parents see us, etc. Maybe it is something we can never get away from. There is a point however that it could get dishonest, which is when we go way overboard to present a labelled package that people like, versus what we really are, in order to get elected, or to manipulate and control people so that we can get what we want.

 

[Nemo]

Yes. We are indoctrinated from birth; it is our human bondage. Our faults are thus so ingrained as to be part of our human nature. In this, we repeat the same mistakes not because we fail to learn from them, but because we have not changed our ways. Still, we persist in the same pattern - from father to son, mother to daughter, generation on generation - over and over again, in an endless cycle. To understand this is to understand the nature and tragedy of our lives.