I heard the horn, saw the driver signalling me to lower my window, and thought I was in for a confrontation. My window dropped, ready for trouble, but he pointed to the rear of my car, calling attention to my bumper sticker: “ANOTHER LIBERAL AGAINST ABORTION!!” He yelled, “I’m the other one!!”
Among those calling themselves “liberal” in today’s world, he and I are indeed pretty much on our own. That is because we are liberal and they ain’t. They’ll call us “anti-choice” although we are the ones defending the now witnessed (via sonogram) choice of babies in the womb to try and avoid the abortionist’s fatal tool. Being truly “liberal” in fact has everything to do with being truly pro-choice, meaning everybody’s choice, including the unborn. Being in favor of the “right” of one person to choose to remove a lifetime of choices from another is about as anti-choice, anti-liberal, as one can get. Advocates of that are in fact, “illiberal”, and aptly categorized socially as “Illiberals.”
As matter of logic, someone who is truly philosophically liberal, and who sees no human life being terminated in an abortion, would certainly have to support a woman’s right to choose abortion. But, the perception of “no human life” in a pregnant human womb, based essentially on a real estate principle: — location, location, location — suggests cognitive impairment, whether ideological or biological in basis.
Huh? “Ideological”? “Philosophical”? “Liberal” versus “illiberal”? Shouldn’t that be “liberal” versus “conservative”? The answer is “no”; liberal and conservative are not only not polar opposites, they are not even on the same philosophical continuum.
Now there we go again with the “philosophical”! Look at all the terms here by which people today call things by their wrong name! Consider the following use of the same terms in “calling things by their right name.” Judge whether I actually do have them right — or wrong. Hint: it’s the former.
Philosophically, I am a liberal.
Spiritually, I am a Christian.
Pragmatically, I am a conservative.
Politically, I have been and remain a life-long Democrat.
Ideologically, I am a Red Sox and N.E. Patriots fan.
There are those who will dismiss my list of self-descriptors as “mere semantics …” and “just labels.” They are, of course, missing the point of the Confucian wisdom on wisdom headlined here. Perhaps it will help to translate into its contemporary American counterpart: “truth in labeling.” It applies to a lot more than packages and containers on store shelves.
Too often today, “the beginning of wisdom lies in” a place sidestepped by true believers of both the left and the right. They invoke the terms “liberal” and “conservative” as crucial intellectual formulations with definitions anchored in history, but actually lacking the slightest relevance to any reality predating their own puberty. Show them the historical disconnect in their conception, and they will answer that language must keep up with the times. “It’s just history,” now say they, throwing in with the “just labels” crowd. Oblivious to the delicious irony, more than a few of the history dismissers have echoed Shakespeare, declaring it all as “much ado about nothing.”
Actually, there is not as much ado as there should be. It is not only about something, but about something malignant, threatening not only the health of our society, but the very existence of the American democracy. If only it were mere misunderstanding, innocent lack of awareness among the “Kool Aid drinkers” — today’s metaphor for those swallowing what is being served in their social reference group. Even that current cliché has a history lesson, in fact an ominous lesson, for the metaphor is not at all new, and the drink “Kool-Aid” is just a sweetened substitute for something preceding it in the history of American cliches: snake oil!
Far beyond randomly evolving misconception, it is deliberately peddled brain-numbing intoxicant – strategic and insidious “social engineering.” The snake oil peddlers from earlier times would never dare stoop to the lying labels of today’s politicians and political advocates. Not only do modern-day hucksters misrepresent in their own labeling, they deliberately put false labels on the competition. Going even further, getting more subtle, more devious, and more dangerous, they invade the very mindset of the culture — its “ideology” — to change the very meaning of the words people seek on labels to identify both the general contents and individual ingredients. Labels matter… Getting them right matters…
“Ideology” is right up there with “liberal” and “conservative” among the labeling words certain politicians and media folk should have on their “look it up” vocabulary lists. I looked them up way back in yesteryear, and learned the things about myself that I listed above. Let’s consider two of them for the moment:
Philosophically, I am a liberal.
Ideologically, I am a Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots fan.
“Ideology” refers to a group mindset. It is not a personally conceived thing, but the set of ideas and values held by a group, culture, or subculture. It is what the herd thinks and what the herd presents to its individual members as correct thinking. “Philosophy,” on the other hand, is an individual’s deliberate thoughtful choice of what the world is all about and what to do about it.
Ideology is a good thing, a functional necessity for human society to work. Even the most philosophical individuals willingly adopt and conform to some ideology. It is not mindless surrender, but convenient submission to group wisdom within reasonable bounds. We all drive on the same side of the road and go along in varying levels with certain conventions of dress, language and mannerisms because it works. Admittedly (and proudly), I run with the herd with abandon for my Red Sox and Patriots (well… except for the face and body paint). I soared in ecstatic delirium in the Pats’ 2004 Super Bowl win, as I will when the Red Sox finish up the year with a World Series Championship. It’s why I agree with my Massachusetts neighbors that the Massachusetts Border Patrol should do more to keep Yankee fans from slipping into our state, using our services, sending their kids to our schools, and taking our jobs…. A tad extreme? Of course, but not at all inappropriate because sports is all about play and fantasy. It’s a stage separated from the real world, and going nuts is what fans do.
It’s also what lynch mobs do, along with ideologically-driven “liberals” and “conservatives.” I know no folks who would knowingly brag about letting the mob rule their thinking on serious matters. Still that is what people are saying when they refer to their “personal ideology.” It is difficult to give credence to someone who claims to be a “thinking” liberal or conservative when the very word they use to describe their thinking means it is simply what everyone around them thinks. The irony is that when they say that, they are probably right.
Sometimes ideology evolves spontaneously from the culture as people simply find ways to communicate and cooperate for the common good. At other times it is created and managed as the deliberate strategic effort of a few who have their own reasons to manipulate the crowd, sometimes legitimately. It is what leaders and managers do. Organizational managers really manage the culture of their organizations, instilling the organizational values in its members. Public relations people, and marketing specialists all work to steer a culture’s values. So do advocates of social causes and — of course — politicians.
Intelligent people keep their heads up, using their own good sense, personal taste, and moral compass as they feel themselves drawn into the crowd movements. Their philosophy will screen the ideology for junk. Those with personal integrity won’t be drawn into simple acceptance. Those with courage will not only stand firm on principle, but speak out in resistance to what they see as wrong and harmful. Heroes will point always to the truth even when it exposes the illusions, delusions and lies among friends and allies — and they will pay the price for that nobility.
It is especially sinister when that “price” is not just the instinctive mob response, but the calculated prescribed punishment of unscrupulous ideologues who have harnessed ideological power to suffocate not only those who speak out, but dare to think independently. It is in understanding this that one comes to understanding of what is “liberal” and what is “illiberal,” what is “conservative” and what is “unconservative.” — and to realize that “conservative” and “liberal” are not necessarily polar opposites.
We should know the difference between “ideology” and “philosophy” because just understanding those terms helps us talk to one another about how ideas form, and how some might manipulate our thinking. Similarly, it is critical to understand that the words, “liberal” and “conservative,” are far more than labels to identify what contemporary political group we run with. Again, some still maintain — as I said above — that it is indeed much ado about nothing — “only semantics,” as some might put it. A common argument is that definitions change, and I should simply accept whatever the modern definitions are of “liberal” and “conservative,”
When people say “modern” or “contemporary” because they think it’s all about time — a matter of replacing old defintions with new — it’s usually with no idea at all that the terms are still there today in other places on the planet beyond the U.S. political stage. They don’t see that such “modern” meanings burn bridges to not only all historical events and persons which logically often justify their very positions, but even to such events and persons in the contemporary world beyond the American political stage:
- Historically, Christ was killed by conservatives because of his liberal views, and the following things were brought about by liberals over conservative resistance: the U.S. Revolution (Tories were conservatives), the end to slavery (abolitionists were liberals), the end of segregation (segregationists were conservative, integrationists liberal).
- In Russia and China, conservatives are communist while liberals preach democracy. Islamic fundamantalists (especially terrorists) are purely conservative — not a liberal bone in their bodies.
This is not to say in any way that self-professed “conservatives” on today’s American political stage are in the mold of historic conservatives. In fact, it is to say that they are not, and that is why the modern use of the “liberal” and “conservative” labels is just plain wrong! Fact is, it is not the positions we take that make us liberal or conservative. It is, rather, the intellectual ingredients of those positions, the thought processes taken in arriving at them — our individual philosophies — which indicate whether we are being liberal or conservative. When a label identifies an ingredient, it should mean the same on every package, on every shelf, in every nation or historical period it is found.
In the follow-up to this, we will look at the heart of the matter — the difference between liberal and conservative philosophies. For the moment, consider this one thought. There are as many perspectives on the same object issues, facts, or ideas as there are people. Thinking people will therefore differ in what they see, and consequently in what they conclude. It is almost statistically impossible for complete agreement on all issues among thinking people in any group of any appreciable size. Yet group agreement does occur, and it is clear evidence of the power of ideology over philosophy. i.e., that such persons may be neither conservative nor liberal but simply ideological robots.