seattle.politics

Renee Dauven wrote:

> Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
> > Renee Dauven wrote:
> >
>
> >> Frankly, all this conversation is proving is the adequacy of the
> >>current, common measuring stick of the Left to Right political spectrum
> >>is really inadequate because it doesn't account for all aspects at all
> >>time frames of all the political philosophies. We can continue to pick
> >>and choose any one of pet parts of any one of them and place it in the
> >>spectrum at any point from now until cows grow wings and still not agree
> >>because not one of them is truely static (meaning unchanged over time)
> >>nor pure (meaning uninfluenced by others, including their opponents) or
> >>original (meaning not derived from something previous).
> >
> >
> > Here's a basic thesis for you to chew upon:
> >
> > The most base human interaction and source of power is fighting, war,
> > violence, and destruction. Politics is a thin layer of civility placed
> > on top of this basic set of instincts, as a mitigating factor so that
> > the destructive nature of power is minimized. Thus, political
> > terminology can easily fall prey to the base instincts by mere
> > proximity.
> >
> > One day 'liberal' wasn't a curse word. The next day it was. How does
> > that happen? Answer: Power.
>
> Paul, the question of whether or not the conservatives have turned
> "liberal" into a bad word ignores the more basic question of what have the
> liberals done to the word first?
> It is my contention that those who call themselves "liberal" as used
> to reference a political philosophy, have changed the definition, the
> basic tenants of their political philosophy.
> It is because of that change, and the subsequent rejection of what
> that change entailed, that "liberal" came to have negative connotations in
> some circles.
> Power, or rather the actual excercise thereof, had nothing to do
> with it.

I offered that 'liberal' was once not a curse word in order to
illustrate my point: Power strategies demanded the restructuring of
political terminology in general. Those who are powerful want something,
and the nature of their power is such that they can make you think that
'liberal' is a curse word, so you do whatever they say as long as they
don't slime you with that label.

I didn't mean to single out that one term and try to rehab it; I was
illustrating a larger issue with a single example.

All you're doing here is saying that I'm wrong, and that liberals
deserve to be vilified for some reason you never actually state.

Now, if you want to go back to talking about the inadequacy of current
political terminology, that'd be great, because I agree: We're short on
ways to talk about politics responsibly *because everything is tied up
in these power structures.*

--
/cartoons/2007/