Considering the Uselessness of Political Labels
Alfred Korzybski, the Polish-American linguist who wrote a pioneering work on semantics - the empirical study of words and their meanings - argued that a distinction must be drawn between words and the object they describe.
His 1993 book, "Science and Sanity," is 927 pages long. I haven't read it, and probably never will. So I turn to American writer William S. Burroughs to make the point. Here's how he does it in an essay about writing:
"Look at abstract words that have no definite referent - words like Communism, materialism, civilization, fascism, reductive, mysticism. There are as many definitions as there are users of these words. According to Korzybski, a word that has no referent is a word that should be dropped from the language and, I would say, certainly from the vocabulary of the writer."
Insofar as the words "liberal" and "conservative" are concerned, I'm almost there.
I have no idea what they mean anymore. I strongly suspect that for the purpose of accurately describing political phenomena, especially in the United States, and particularly now, they are among the most useless and disorienting words in the English language.
The same might also be said of "Democrat" and "Republican." No single referent exists. Certainly, none exist that everyone, or even most people, can agree on. Why use them?
Take Tom McCall, Oregon's "Republican" governor in the 1970s. I'll go out on a limb and suppose that he was "conservative" in relation to "Democrats" of the day.
McCall gave Oregon land-use planning, which today is, broadly speaking, embraced by "liberals" and has "conservatives" reaching for pitchforks.
I might say that, but I would have to reconcile two seemingly contradictory facts: 1) The News-Register bills itself as "an independent, Republican newspaper," and 2) The News-Register's editorial board opposed Measure 37, which has loosened Oregon's land-use restrictions.
Does this mean the News-Register's editorial page is "liberal"?
Who thinks this? What words shall we use to describe it?
These linguistic waters are further muddied by the existence of a curious new breed that also has no consistent referent. I speak of "Bush-bashers." You know, those crazy ... um, "liberals" who refuse to bow down before the president.
There's a problem with this.
In the last year, and even in the last few weeks, I've read many articles that exuberantly "bash" Bush. Some pretty vitriolic stuff, too. One piece, written by Justin Raimondo, sounded like something you might read in The Nation.
Except that it was in The American Conservative.
The magazine was founded by Pat Buchanan, who has been variously described, at different times and by different people, as a "Republican," a "conservative," a "neo-conservative," a "staunch conservative," an "independent," and a "fascist" who - get this - sounds like "a liberal Democrat."
If you're just learning the English language, good luck with that.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote earlier this month that the American economy faces a monumental crisis, and that Bush's Social Security plan is indicative of an administration that is "oblivious to reality."
Another Bush-basher, say you? A "liberal" naysayer?
Indeed. It must be, because it was published at Counterpunch.org, the website of Alexander Cockburn, who has been variously described, at different times and by different people, as "anti-American," a "radical," a "Marxist," a "left cynic," an "iconoclast," and a "non-conformist."
Except for the fact that Roberts served in the Reagan administration. He also was an associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and a contributing editor at National Review, which is ... dare I say it, a "conservative" magazine founded by William F. Buckley.
Is Roberts now a "liberal"? Or is he a "conservative" with an "independent" streak?
If so, can we say definitively and objectively what, precisely, this "streak" is "independent" of?
If we gather all the "Republicans" and "conservatives" together who have "bashed" Bush during the last year, can we say that they constitute a vast "right-wing" conspiracy? Or a vast "left-wing" conspiracy?
Are these "right" and "left" wings an equal distance from a defined, tangible center? Or are they lopsided? Where is this center? Can you point to it?
Geographic considerations come into play. Would an Oregon "liberal" be considered a "radical" in Wyoming? Would it matter if he was a 20-year-old political science major at Reed College or 60-year-old farmer from Burns?
If he moved to Boston, would he be considered a "moderate"?
A moderate what?
Perhaps we can nail some language down if we bring abortion into the mix. I mean, it's pretty well-established, isn't it? Those who are "pro-life" are "conservative" and those who are "pro-choice" are "liberal." Right? Isn't that what "everybody" says?
What, then, am I to make of the media packet I received recently from a group calling itself "Democrats for Life"? Are they conservative liberals? Or liberal conservatives?
What shall we make of Mary Starrett, an anti-abortion activist who calls the self-described "pro-life" organization "Oregon Right to Life" a "pro-abortion" group?
What do we do with U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, the "Democrat" from Lane County? I ask because I recall a time when Denny Smith, a well-known "Republican," helpfully described DeFazio as a "socialist."
How would I explain this to someone from the "conservative" state of Idaho, or the "liberal" state of Massachusetts? Particularly if the person from Idaho considered himself a "liberal" and the person from Boston was a "conservative"?
I'm not sure I know.
But I took enough political science at the "liberal" University of Oregon to know that if you enjoy exasperating arguments, convene a discussion between any two "Marxists" and ask them to define "socialist."
Of course, first you must decide - noun or adjective?
By my conservative estimate, you're in for a long haul.
His 1993 book, "Science and Sanity," is 927 pages long. I haven't read it, and probably never will. So I turn to American writer William S. Burroughs to make the point. Here's how he does it in an essay about writing:
"Look at abstract words that have no definite referent - words like Communism, materialism, civilization, fascism, reductive, mysticism. There are as many definitions as there are users of these words. According to Korzybski, a word that has no referent is a word that should be dropped from the language and, I would say, certainly from the vocabulary of the writer."
Insofar as the words "liberal" and "conservative" are concerned, I'm almost there.
I have no idea what they mean anymore. I strongly suspect that for the purpose of accurately describing political phenomena, especially in the United States, and particularly now, they are among the most useless and disorienting words in the English language.
The same might also be said of "Democrat" and "Republican." No single referent exists. Certainly, none exist that everyone, or even most people, can agree on. Why use them?
Take Tom McCall, Oregon's "Republican" governor in the 1970s. I'll go out on a limb and suppose that he was "conservative" in relation to "Democrats" of the day.
McCall gave Oregon land-use planning, which today is, broadly speaking, embraced by "liberals" and has "conservatives" reaching for pitchforks.
I might say that, but I would have to reconcile two seemingly contradictory facts: 1) The News-Register bills itself as "an independent, Republican newspaper," and 2) The News-Register's editorial board opposed Measure 37, which has loosened Oregon's land-use restrictions.
Does this mean the News-Register's editorial page is "liberal"?
Who thinks this? What words shall we use to describe it?
These linguistic waters are further muddied by the existence of a curious new breed that also has no consistent referent. I speak of "Bush-bashers." You know, those crazy ... um, "liberals" who refuse to bow down before the president.
There's a problem with this.
In the last year, and even in the last few weeks, I've read many articles that exuberantly "bash" Bush. Some pretty vitriolic stuff, too. One piece, written by Justin Raimondo, sounded like something you might read in The Nation.
Except that it was in The American Conservative.
The magazine was founded by Pat Buchanan, who has been variously described, at different times and by different people, as a "Republican," a "conservative," a "neo-conservative," a "staunch conservative," an "independent," and a "fascist" who - get this - sounds like "a liberal Democrat."
If you're just learning the English language, good luck with that.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote earlier this month that the American economy faces a monumental crisis, and that Bush's Social Security plan is indicative of an administration that is "oblivious to reality."
Another Bush-basher, say you? A "liberal" naysayer?
Indeed. It must be, because it was published at Counterpunch.org, the website of Alexander Cockburn, who has been variously described, at different times and by different people, as "anti-American," a "radical," a "Marxist," a "left cynic," an "iconoclast," and a "non-conformist."
Except for the fact that Roberts served in the Reagan administration. He also was an associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and a contributing editor at National Review, which is ... dare I say it, a "conservative" magazine founded by William F. Buckley.
Is Roberts now a "liberal"? Or is he a "conservative" with an "independent" streak?
If so, can we say definitively and objectively what, precisely, this "streak" is "independent" of?
If we gather all the "Republicans" and "conservatives" together who have "bashed" Bush during the last year, can we say that they constitute a vast "right-wing" conspiracy? Or a vast "left-wing" conspiracy?
Are these "right" and "left" wings an equal distance from a defined, tangible center? Or are they lopsided? Where is this center? Can you point to it?
Geographic considerations come into play. Would an Oregon "liberal" be considered a "radical" in Wyoming? Would it matter if he was a 20-year-old political science major at Reed College or 60-year-old farmer from Burns?
If he moved to Boston, would he be considered a "moderate"?
A moderate what?
Perhaps we can nail some language down if we bring abortion into the mix. I mean, it's pretty well-established, isn't it? Those who are "pro-life" are "conservative" and those who are "pro-choice" are "liberal." Right? Isn't that what "everybody" says?
What, then, am I to make of the media packet I received recently from a group calling itself "Democrats for Life"? Are they conservative liberals? Or liberal conservatives?
What shall we make of Mary Starrett, an anti-abortion activist who calls the self-described "pro-life" organization "Oregon Right to Life" a "pro-abortion" group?
What do we do with U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, the "Democrat" from Lane County? I ask because I recall a time when Denny Smith, a well-known "Republican," helpfully described DeFazio as a "socialist."
How would I explain this to someone from the "conservative" state of Idaho, or the "liberal" state of Massachusetts? Particularly if the person from Idaho considered himself a "liberal" and the person from Boston was a "conservative"?
I'm not sure I know.
But I took enough political science at the "liberal" University of Oregon to know that if you enjoy exasperating arguments, convene a discussion between any two "Marxists" and ask them to define "socialist."
Of course, first you must decide - noun or adjective?
By my conservative estimate, you're in for a long haul.
This essay originally appeared in the News-Register on March 26, 2005
