Confusion of political tags make talking politics hard

[Erose]

Been thinking about this a few days, but one of the issues today with political debate is that we use political terms inappropriately, and thus it makes those terms completely useless in naming a person's viewpoint, and thus those terms become just slang words to try an belittle someone else.

For example the terms liberal and conservative have really ceased to have much meaning, and are never ever used appropriately. Those that are called liberals are not really liberals and quite frankly the only folks who fulfill the brand of conservative are only the majority of politicians and government officials, who like the system just like it is.

Also we have made liberal and conservative antiphons, which they are truly not. In fact one can be liberal and conservative at the same time without any conflict whatsoever. In all honesty what does the terms "right" and "left" really mean? Does anyone really know? We seem to just brand folks these terms based on whether or not they agree with us, and on what side we believe we are. In other words if I believe I'm on the "right" and you disagree with my opinion then that must mean you are on the "left".

So let us define some terms here just to get us all on the same sheet of music:

Liberal: someone who likes as little governmental intrusion as they can get.
Statist: opposite a liberal, who believes more the government is involved in our lives the better.
Conservative: someone who likes things the way they are, and does not want change; or someone who wants to see change that is a return to the way things were at one point.
Progressive: opposite a conservative, who doesn't like how things are, and thinks change is needed.


So now clearing up some confusion:

1. Today we call liberals libertarians.
2. The people who are dubbed conservatives today are really moderate liberals with a perceived conservative bent to regain some of the values that are perceived lost in this generation.
3. Many of the folks we call liberal today are really statists. President Obama for example is not a liberal, far from it, he is a statist all the way to his bones.
4. The rest of those we call liberal who are not statists, have more in common with libertarians, than any other group, albeit those two groups really don't like each other.
4. Everyone stated above would like to see significant changes in how things are so they (we) are all progressives.
5. Like I commented above the only conservatives in this country are found in the government. They are those men and women who like the system like it is, because they are making good money and don't won't that to change.

So it would be nice if we could really start using the terminology correct. It would make the political debates in this country make more sense.

Anyway what have I learned about myself from this exercise? I am terminology speaking, that which I used to think that I am not. In the truest sense I am a progressive moderate liberal, with a conservative bent when it comes to some moral issues. Go figure.

 

[MikeK]

A large part of the problem is that too many people don't want to think, they want to align themselves with a "team" and go from there. You can spot these people easily, they spend more time and effort criticizing their opponents than they do the team they support. They are not interested in making their in group better, in challenging themselves and their peers to improve - they are interested in the sport of tearing down others. Thankfully, there still exist good people who will hold their own people to higher standards than they hold others.

 

[Genersis]

I usually refer to myself as a Liberal Socialist.
Seems the best fit from what little I know of politics.

As for the left/right thing, my general rule is to temper a person/party's approach to social policy, with their approach to economic policy.
The more economic regulation/intervention supported, the more left wing economic policy is.
The more social regulation/intervention supported, the more right wing social policy is.

Unfortunately, the accuracy in the way politics is generally talked about probably isn't going to change any time soon unless serious interest in politics becomes more widespread.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Liberals are not called libertarians.

 

[AMDG]

I'll agree that they way one speaks of ANY situation makes things difficult. (As an example, those known not to be for abortion are called pro-life. If that is so, does that mean that people who think abortion is fine are pro-death? Put the "tags" like that and all that is gotten is a hostile argument--nothing aimed at understanding.) Put it another way, "he who controls the language, controls the argument".

What I find "off-putting" is the difference in Europe's political tags with American political tags without it ever being noted that there's a different definition between the two. (In Europe a liberal is a person for limited government, and personal responsibility--a conservative, or the now defunct, classical liberal--in the U.S. And in Europe, a "right-winger", conservative is more of a fascist in America. In the U.S. Progressivism (in the early 20th century both the Repubs and Dems embraced it) then it got a bad reputation (with eugenics) and so it became liberalism and now that that has gotten a bad reputation, the definition seems to be swinging back to Progressivism (that's what Hillary Clinton calls herself now instead of "liberal".) How on earth can we ever understand each other when we don't even have the same definitions for the same words being used?

 

[MikeK]

I'll agree that they way one speaks of ANY situation makes things difficult. (As an example, those known not to be for abortion are called pro-life. If that is so, does that mean that people who think abortion is fine are pro-death? Put the "tags" like that and all that is gotten is a hostile argument--nothing aimed at understanding.) Put it another way, "he who controls the language, controls the argument".

What I find "off-putting" is the difference in Europe's political tags with American political tags without it ever being noted that there's a different definition between the two. (In Europe a liberal is a person for limited government, and personal responsibility--a conservative, or the now defunct, classical liberal--in the U.S. And in Europe, a "right-winger", conservative is more of a fascist in America. In the U.S. Progressivism (in the early 20th century both the Repubs and Dems embraced it) then it got a bad reputation (with eugenics) and so it became liberalism and now that that has gotten a bad reputation, the definition seems to be swinging back to Progressivism (that's what Hillary Clinton calls herself now instead of "liberal".) How on earth can we ever understand each other when we don't even have the same definitions for the same words being used?

I don't remember Ayn Rand describing herself as being a progressive or a liberal. She favored eugenics and was the prototype for what are now largely called libertarians, though many Republicans sing her praises as well,

 

[Star Adept]

I have this problem in everything where one feels the need to classify their position with a tag so that it's a faster option than explaining their opinions.

It's the reason I have my religious tag on this site as Other. To do anything else would mean that I would have to agree every single view point under a title, and honestly, who can say they do that?

 

[Erose]

Liberals are not called libertarians.

In the classical sense of the definition of liberal, libertarians fit under that tag; but not all liberals are libertarians.

 

[Erose]

Unfortunately, the accuracy in the way politics is generally talked about probably isn't going to change any time soon unless serious interest in politics becomes more widespread.

I think this is where the problem lies. There is huge serious interest in politics, but the problem is that we have allowed the media to establish the narrative and define the terms; which quite frankly the way those terms are defined make them just useless words.

Lets be frank, due to the current low IQ in the media, they should not be the ones defining terms, especially terms that are as significant as the ones discussed on this thread.

Most folks out there in the USA, believe liberal and conservative are antiphons, correct? When truly they are not.

 

[AMDG]

In the classical sense of the definition of liberal, libertarians fit under that tag; but not all liberals are libertarians.

Not in the U.S. they aren't. Liberals in the U.S. are for BIG government and no choice and no personal responsibility. (Think Progressives. I think they took over the word when Progressives got a bad reputation when people realized that they were for eugenics.) In the U.S. the Libertarians are for Personal freedom and personal responsibility. That means that they are definitely for limited government unlike liberals.

I think that the last classical liberal was JFK. Don't think they make them anymore.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A good book I read on the subject is, "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," by Jonathan Haidt

Jonathan Haidt is a a psychologist, who looks at what causes people today to be so divided.

In short, he shows what MikeK posted in this tread earlier. People want to belong to a team and end up choosing a religious/political ideological group which accepts them.

They then defend that groups position to the hilt, even when that group's position is so obviously flawed.

Eckhart Tolle describes it as an ego-identity attachment. The person needs to belong, and once they've found something that feeds the ego, they attach to it. It doesn't matter if it's a religion or political group. When anyone questions the positions of that group, the person's ego goes on the offensive. It's not the ideology of the group they defend so much, but their ego.

What Tolle writes on this, Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote as well. It's not spirituality per se, but psychology 101, and the Archbishop understood the human condition well.

Until we can let go of these ego-identity attachments, there will always be conflict with those who belong to groups or take position which are a threat to the group, the ego will respond offensively.

In all of this, it's why detachment from our ego appetites is so important in growing spiritually. We must align our wills with that of Jesus Christ, and He doesn't take ideological/political positions in worldly matters. Jesus is truth which can only be grasped through love.

Jesus two commandments are the only thing we need attach ourselves to.

Love God with our entire being, and love our neighbor as ourselves.

I know perhaps better than anyone here, it's not easy, and I am constantly turning to Jesus asking for forgiveness.


In Christ
Jim

 

[Erose]

Not in the U.S. they aren't. Liberals in the U.S. are for BIG government and no choice and no personal responsibility. (Think Progressives. I think they took over the word when Progressives got a bad reputation when people realized that they were for eugenics.) In the U.S. the Libertarians are for Personal freedom and personal responsibility. That means that they are definitely for limited government unlike liberals.

I think that the last classical liberal was JFK. Don't think they make them anymore.

AMDG you made my point exactly. In this country, we have destroyed the meaning of these terms to the point they are no longer recognizable. In America those who are usually labeled "Liberal" are not liberals, they are usually something else entirely. And folks are given or use the term "Progressive" in a way that the term is not defined as. Hence all the confusion about this mess.

 

[AMDG]

AMDG you made my point exactly. In this country, we have destroyed the meaning of these terms to the point they are no longer recognizable. In America those who are usually labeled "Liberal" are not liberals, they are usually something else entirely. And folks are given or use the term "Progressive" in a way that the term is not defined as. Hence all the confusion about this mess.

It's also what I said in post #5. We use the same words, but the definitions of those words are poles apart so understanding is impossible. It's also said when we are informed that "when any side controls the language, he is able to "win".

 

[Erose]

A good book I read on the subject is, "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion," by Jonathan Haidt

Jonathan Haidt is a a psychologist, who looks at what causes people today to be so divided.

In short, he shows what MikeK posted in this tread earlier. People want to belong to a team and end up choosing a religious/political ideological group which accepts them.

They then defend that groups position to the hilt, even when that group's position is so obviously flawed.

Eckhart Tolle describes it as an ego-identity attachment. The person needs to belong, and once they've found something that feeds the ego, they attach to it. It doesn't matter if it's a religion or political group. When anyone questions the positions of that group, the person's ego goes on the offensive. It's not the ideology of the group they defend so much, but their ego.

What Tolle writes on this, Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote as well. It's not spirituality per se, but psychology 101, and the Archbishop understood the human condition well.

Until we can let go of these ego-identity attachments, there will always be conflict with those who belong to groups or take position which are a threat to the group, the ego will respond offensively.

In all of this, it's why detachment from our ego appetites is so important in growing spiritually. We must align our wills with that of Jesus Christ, and He doesn't take ideological/political positions in worldly matters. Jesus is truth which can only be grasped through love.

Jesus two commandments are the only thing we need attach ourselves to.

Love God with our entire being, and love our neighbor as ourselves.

I know perhaps better than anyone here, it's not easy, and I am constantly turning to Jesus asking for forgiveness.


In Christ
Jim

The root cause of this is that we live in a secular society where "politics" (I use this in a classical sense) trumps "religion", in the majority of people. The perfect evidence of this is the attempt to use political terms to describe religious movements or positions in Religious bodies.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The root cause of this is that we live in a secular society where "politics" (I use this in a classical sense) trumps "religion", in the majority of people. The perfect evidence of this is the attempt to use political terms to describe religious movements or positions in Religious bodies.

The root cause is the false identity we create from early on growing up, as defense mechanisms. It is the condition humankind is in
as a result of our fallen state from sin.

It takes self awareness to over come it and the surest way to self-knowledge is through knowing Jesus Christ. Through his transforming grace, we grow into the persons God had in mind when he created us.

Jim

 

[MikeK]

The root cause is the false identity we create from early on growing up, as defense mechanisms. It is the condition humankind is in
as a result of our fallen state from sin.

It takes self awareness to over come it and the surest way to self-knowledge is through knowing Jesus Christ. Through his transforming grace, we grow into the persons God had in mind when he created us.

Jim

Yup. The Earthly man is preocupied with establishing a sense of tribe.

 

[Sumwear]

Yup. The Earthly man is preocupied with establishing a sense of tribe.

okay. but neither tribe is working. so why not create a new tribe?

 

[MikeK]

okay. but neither tribe is working. so why not create a new tribe?

I don't have a tribe, nor do I desire to be part of one. I prefer to join voices with those who are on the side of truth and justice as I see it (while continuously internally evaluating my own positions) and to criticize those I think are doing harm, no matter what "team" they're on. In truth, I have a very hard time respecting any human being that would self-identify as a Deomcrat or Republican.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

okay. but neither tribe is working. so why not create a new tribe?

Nor will they.


The only source for peace is in God alone, through Jesus Christ.

Politicians will do what they do, regardless of the party they belong to.

Religious leaders, will do what they do, unless they submit themselves to the will of God, which is to serve their flock.

We as members of the Body of Christ, must do what He commanded.

Love God with all of our being and our neighbor as ourselves.

Be in the present with God and allow His divine providence to flow in and out of your life according to His will.


Jim

 

[Sumwear]

I don't have a tribe, nor do I desire to be part of one. I prefer to join voices with those who are on the side of truth and justice as I see it (while continuously internally evaluating my own positions) and to criticize those I think are doing harm, no matter what "team" they're on. In truth, I have a very hard time respecting any human being that would self-identify as a Deomcrat or Republican.

but that's the main problem with the u.s. even though I talk about u.s. politics, and politics globally for that matter, I readily classify myself as apolitical just because it will still boil down to republican vs. democrat. both on a state and federal level. with the u.s. supreme court always ready to remind us that they are the final arbiters in this country. while europe has their own versions of slapstick comedy in their various political camps, at least people do not shy away from walking away and joining a new party. and I do mean new in the sense as being created just recently to combat whatever majority political power in their respected country.