The importance of being Honest

In some ways it is the most basic thing we know as communicators. Our choice of words can deceive or inform our listeners. We may point to a white egg and state that it is black coal, this is clearly deceiving the listener. It only confuses a conversation by mixing the object of the egg with the object of coal. However, if we call the white egg ‘black coal’ long enough it will take on the name ‘black coal’. In doing so the object that was formerly called ‘white egg’ will still be the same object but with a different title. Such is the danger of deception; it will become informative over time.

When titles change there is a tendency to believe that the object, described by the title, has changed. If I am used to referring to an object in a certain way and it is presented to me with a different title, I will assume a different object is being described. We assume that there is general agreement on what a ‘white egg’ is but if I am introduced to a white egg called ‘black coal’, I will assume it has some different properties that account for the different name. Similarly, I will call to mind the object known as black coal and use it as the basis for imagining what may be different about the white egg that shares its name.

Labeling a thing is a type of defining of a thing. We can use people’s perception of a well-known object’s qualities to impart the perception of those same qualities on another thing. Doing such a thing confuses conversation in the arts, sciences, and general philosophies.

Wilde was probably right; there is an importance to being Ernest once one has presented himself as such.

I bring this up because of the tendency to ‘poison the well’ of an ideological opponent by labeling them. In things where opinions count, titles are meaningless. If I refer to Al Gore as a Conservative (in the United States’ sense of the word), I am able to capture some of his qualities like his being a born-again Christian and a fervent crusader (with his wife) against immoral messages in rock music. It misleads the listener, though, because the word Conservative is really meant to describe a mythical creature, one who wishes for the paradoxical smaller government and stronger moral laws. Al Gore may wish for stronger moral laws but his desire to protect the environment is not interpreted as a moral call and is looked at as a desire to increase the size of the government. For this reason, Gore is called a Liberal.

Furthermore, describing a Conservative in such terms leaves us with no way of describing George W. Bush. He clearly can’t be thought of as small government but he can be thought of as wanting stronger moral laws. Of course, morality is in the mind of a reader. George W’s stance on a ‘culture of life’ clashes somewhat with his strict adherence to the death penalty. Somebody else’s morality (like Catholics) may wish to see the death penalty halted. This makes it difficult to know who the Conservative is.

This gets more complicated when we imagine that a Liberal is meant to be the polar-opposite of a Conservative in the United States. This is something of an impossibility, the U.S. is the rare country where no outright adherence to socialism or communism exists, and even its theocratic tendencies are tempered. America presents a very narrow political spectrum. Liberals and Conservatives, generally, start from the same place. Both sides invoke G-d. The conservatives claim a high-ground authority to this issue but, the truth is, both sides use religious rhetoric. Both sides use the rhetoric of nationalism. Neither group wishes to see budgetary disorder and both sides claim adherence from private enterprise. Really the U.S. is so strict with what they appear to expect from their politicians that it is sometimes difficult to see the difference between the conservatives and liberals to many foreigners.

There is some suggestion from popular rhetoric that the difference lies in equal treatment of Races, Religion, Federalism, and, of course, Abortion.

The Conservative is thought to hold individual freedom of action in such high regard that instances of racism go unheeded because the individual has enough legal rights to overcome any prejudices that are directed at her. Liberals are thought to recognize the existing and pervasive racism that exists and uses government to ensure affected races have an opportunity through active government involvement to overcome the negative events. Neither side begins with the presupposition that a race is inferior or unable to succeed. To imply that a Conservative is racist because they wish to restrict the size of government and believe in the ability of any human to overcome their abusers is incorrect. To imply that a Liberal is a racist because they begin with the presupposition that a race is inferior and can only survive with the assistance of the State is equally incorrect. We may say that the conservative position ignores historical evidence and may not reverse the trend of racist practices in the U.S. as quickly as using the power of the State. We may say the liberal position is too old a strategy and worked when racism was still a socially acceptable phenomenon but the last 40 years of policies have pushed the practice underground and away from the ability of the State to affect change.

The Liberal is thought to believe individual freedom enforced through a secular society in which the individual finds their right to worship (or not) unhindered. The Conservative is thought to believe the Church presents the moral foundation of the State and, for this reason, secularism simply means no one church can lay claim to the apparatus of the State, itself. In this example the roles are reversed, it is the Liberal with the belief in an individual above both the State and Church and both are subservient to her natural freedoms. It is the Conservatives who subvert the individual to the apparatus of a church/state, the two never connected but the two never separate.

Looking at these two examples we immediately see the confusion that can be explored in looking at Federalism. The definition of the central authority by which the 50 states agree and submit to be ruled over is, considered, a large difference between the two sides. Conservatives are thought to favor a limited role of government, leaving the individual free to contract. Liberals are thought to believe in the Government’s ability to prevent and repair inefficiencies that may result from a laissez faire system. In reality, we can cast the Conservative with a belief that man’s ills are controlled by a system of moral laws defined by the church and voted through by the state and the Liberal with a belief that man’s ills cannot be cured by a church because man’s ills will taint the practice of the church, only learned men running a State can cure these ills. The difference seems to be that liberals believe we must create the utopia of the church through the state and the conservatives believe that the church is already functioning and only hindered by the state.

Abortion then stands as the paramount issue. Should the state enforce a ban on a practice that the church (and, hence, religious morality) abhors because it means the death of a (at least, potential) human? Should the state enforce the right of the living, sentient mother at the expense of the moral laws that would ban abortion to save the (at least, potential) human? Abortion, then, is the clash of the one grand difference and similarity between a Conservative and a Liberal. Although the Conservative, by embracing religious morality, differs from the Liberal, who embraces the individual, they both believe in a state apparatus to control these activities and neither side is truly comfortable in their position.

Both sides of the U.S. political game give lip service to a free market and the freedom of humans to choose their destiny. The purpose of a politician is antithetical to that belief. A politician is asking for a job in which they are expected to use the powers the electorate has leased to restrain individual freedom and limit the activity of the free market. Legislation becomes law which becomes a restriction. When abortion became political it became a question of restriction. The state may restrict the ability of a woman to seek an abortion, they may restrict the ability of a doctor to perform an abortion, they may restrict the ability to educate about abortion, they may restrict the ability of people to protest abortion, they may restrict the ability of professional trade groups to self-regulate abortions, they may restrict the number of abortions, the may enforce certain groups to get abortions (a restriction on the probable life), and so on. In either case, the liberals and conservatives believe there has been a failure and the state should intervene.

For a Conservative the paradox is the same one they always fight with, how can government be less intrusive in people’s lives if it is expected to enforce laws against religious-based immorality. Conservatives like to point to “thou shall not murder” and our murder laws as proof that all laws are just enforced morality but this argument is weak because it ignores the fact the laws based on morality change as attitudes change (these days it appears polygamy and incest are out but homosexuality and promiscuity are okay). Instead, conservative thinking is stuck with its adherence to defending the views of the current form of the church and not some timeless morality. So a Conservative is not really conservative at all. Stripped of the ability to attach legislation to a fundamental religious moral, they really ask that we increase the size of governmental oversight to protect the humans who can not care for themselves by protecting them from tool/chemical-induced murder. A government with increased oversight is run by people who are susceptible to abusing power. It is also easy to outlaw abortion completely but without some other social service net to support the new births you may see an increased risk of infant mortality numbers going up (as mother’s are forced to have children they cannot care for) and, arguably (and it is a vicious argument), crime.

In the end, the Conservative that calls for abortion to be outlawed is fitting our definition of a Liberal better. The Conservative sees a failing of the laissez faire system in that a woman can transact with a doctor to kill a (probable) human life. It should be corrected by empowering the government to increase its oversight of the public. This is against the tradition of privacy in America. Worse yet, by making the matter public it removes the need of the individual to seek solace with G-d and forces them to seek solace with the state, the state supplants the church; the core of the Liberal ideology. A soul that broke the law by having an abortion would be punished as a criminal by the state, removing them from the community and their church where the true healing of an individual is to be expected by a Conservative.

The Liberal has a similar quandary. The Liberal sees abortion as a necessary tragedy. A Liberal will note that abortion has occurred over time and memorial and all the current situation does is protect the life of the mother. By making abortion legal, women can choose a safe alternative to chemicals or desperate actions meant to end the fetal growth within them. The Liberal wants this safe option to remain between the Doctor and the patient. However, in seeking this privacy on behalf of the woman the Liberal foregoes State intervention. State intervention is necessary in other places to protect woman. The “private is public” is a mantra meant to encourage the dirty secrets that occurs in homes to become part of the nation’s political agenda. Rape and incest can go unreported in the current scheme because the individual is supreme. At first glance this seems consistent but the need to keep abortion legal is at odds with the market failure to keep women safe. A woman has been allowed the ability to leave a crime unreported that has forced a woman into this situation. How many fathers and brothers remain safe because their daughters and sisters were able to gain an abortion with no need of reporting their victimization to gain the medical service? In other words, the Liberal is ignoring the ability to help an individual through the service of the state to ensure the right of the individual to contract, similar to the argument used by conservatives regarding racial prejudice.

Simply put, even the theoretical meaning of the words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ fall apart when analyzed. If theory is a problem then practical usage of the terms is nearly impossible. Humans rationalize actions and, as a result, a politician will be lumped together with others that a commentator wants to associate with rather than their true ideological placement. It becomes more about defining the team a politician is on by relying on a gut-feeling regarding a political view rather then a rigorous scientific method that would lend itself to accurate and consistent labeling.

What can I say objectively about a politician who federalized the U.S. educational system, increased government spending, increased the size of government, and believes that privacy is necessary victim to the government’s ability to provide safety? It speaks to a deep belief in the ability of government to improve our lives when free market principles are failing. What would be interesting about such a politician would be a professed belief in the church as an institution that is better at curing social problems than government. If such a person existed their positions would be contradictory to a point where there was no ability or need to label them ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’.

What can I say objectively about a politician who believes that abortion should be legal and that welfare programs should be scaled back? There is something more consistent in this position than if the politician wished these two things to be separate but we wouldn’t call this position ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, we would be forced to use the catch-all moniker of ‘moderate’. This label would have the same informational value as telling the reader the politician was from the U.S., the conclusions that may be drawn from the label are impossible.

Just as a white egg can become known as ‘black coal’ if it is called that long enough, so too can people begin to think that ‘black coal’ refers exclusively to white eggs. Then we need to find another word for black coal. The phrase ‘black coal’ becomes obscured and identified with something it wasn’t, conversations become more difficult and even the process of education is affected as a generation of children imagine that white eggs are mined and burned for fuel.

Such it has been that conservatism has come to be used to describe Republicans and people now believe conservatism has something to do with believing the things Bush believes. Additionally, liberalism has been watered down to morph itself into a line of libertarianism for abortion but state interference on most other issues.

Labels mask inconsistencies and hide actions that are otherwise abhorrent to supporters. I know that commentators will continue to obscure with the labels of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ but it would be best if we could put these labels behind us and focus instead on the issues as they arise and I will continue, as a confused American, watching my news and eating scrambled coals.