From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:28:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <JASON.92Sep8151229@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>	Words mean things, and the terms liberal and conservative
>designate a general politcal philosophy.  A conservative believes in a
>reduction of government and traditional values while a liberal
>believes in the expansion of government to supply everyone with
>everything they need.

(sigh!)  Yes, words mean things, but one of the reason some people
prefer to avoid use of labels like "liberal" and "conservative"
is that these words mean different things to different people.
Your definitions above are truly weird.  The definition of
"conservative" I prefer (shared with my dictionaries and William
F. Buckley) is one who wishes to preserve the status quo.  In this
sense, the Bushman and Dannikins are both conservatives, in that
there is little in their political platforms which involve
substantial change in the social, political, or economic relationships
in the USA.  The idea of "status quo" is useful to separate
conservatives from other groups, like libertarians, the more
radical religious right, or fringe nuts-os like Aryan Nations.

Your definition of "liberal" is even stranger.  I don't know
any liberal who would agree with it.  For that matter, your
definition of "liberal" would not apply to any socialist
I've ever known.  Alas, the dictionary is of little help here,
because its definitions of "liberal" include "generous" and "tolerant",
which are nice things but not a basis for clearly defined political
belief.  This is actually why I rarely use the term "liberal"
is political discourse.

>Both of these terms are more extreme than most
>people are, but they give a direction and philisopical background to
>making moderate decisions.  Picking a side and calling them
>label-throwing is label-throwing in itself and completely void of any
>issue discussion.

Using labels with generally agreed upon definitions is useful.  
Using labels which are emotionally charged (e.g., Nazi), or using
common terms in idiosyncratic ways (e.g., Pat Robertsons recent
definition of "feminist") are antithetical to reasoned discussion
and only encourage the proliferation of mountebanks.
>
>	Here's my general reasoning for believing it's time for a more
>conservative government:
>
>	Historically, a left wing society is economically inefficient
>and is much too permissive of criminal and anti-social behavior.  A
>right wing society is highly efficient but is too inflexible in
>defining morality.
>
>	Looking at the problems in the US, my conclusion is that the
>government is a little bit left of where it should be.  The economy is
>lacking in efficiency, the crime rate has soared due to lack of crime
>deterrents, and kids are failing out of school and getting involved in
>drugs, because it is socially acceptable to do so.  This tells me it's
>time to push the government a little to the right; voting for Bush may
>not do this, but it will prevent the government from sliding even
>farther in the wrong direction.
>--
>Jason C. Austin
>j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
>

Your "reasoning" consists of inaccurate history and vague
statements of social causality.  "Left" and "right" are probably
even more meaningless terms than "conservative" and "liberal",
so it's hard to make much sense of your conclusions.

If this style of approaching social ills is common among
people in the USA, it is easy to see why Dan-o is so popular.


-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |