Term 'Liberal' defies one word explanation

If you have a moment, I invite you to work through a word association exercise with me. The goal is to come up with a one word description of various items I will suggest to you.

Ready?

O.K. first item - the Grand Canyon. What word describes it to you? How about Awesome? Deep? Wide? Huge? It’s difficult, isn’t it, to limit the description to one word.

Let’s see; how about the Eiffel Tower? Tall? Iron Grid? (no, that’s two words) Overarching? Hmmm, this is going to be tough.

Here are a few well recognized items. Let’s see if we can define them in a single word.

Tomato. Cadillac. Door. Sweetheart.

How did you do? Remember, you can only designate one single word to define each one.

Nearly impossible, you say?

Then how on earth can some people be so smug when defining certain other people as “Liberal” or “Conservative” as if one word says it all?

For example: a common practice among a certain political group is to use the word Liberal as a derogatory epithet. It is open code for something negative, apparently needing or deserving no further exposition. “He (or She) is a Liberal!” is heard in many political ads.

O.K., and the Grand Canyon is huge. What about it?

You rarely hear the word “Conservative!” thrown out negatively at a candidate, unless it is accompanied by an additional adjective or two. You may possibly hear, “He (or she) is a lock step No! Conservative.” That’s using more than one word to describe the subject, however, so we must disqualify it for this exercise.

Perhaps you could make a case that Conservatives purchase more advertising, thus increasing the use of the term Liberal! That would be ironic, though, because aren’t Conservatives the ones criticizing big spending?

Elections are goofy. Trust me I know.

I come from the Old South which was solidly Democratic and known in those days as solidly Conservative. “Pointy Head Liberals” was as much a battle cry then as its modern day relation. Only then, Republicans were seen as the Pointy Head Liberals.

“I would sooner vote for an old yeller dog as vote Republican,” was a slogan which still can be heard in some halls of congress today. “Yellow Dog” Democrats vow to vote along straight party lines. So far as is known, Republicans haven't come up with their own nickname.

Today, of course, there has been a polar shift in politics. What were once Conservative Democrats are now Republican Conservatives, and Democrats are now seen as the Pointy Head Liberals. The solid Democrat South is now a sure thing for Republicans.

Any idea what brought about the reversal? It had less to do with fiscal or foreign policy or size of government or any of the oft heard complaints today. Conservatives, in fact, had long kept a party in power which contributed to big deficits and was a champion of government assistance. This powerful Conservative alliance also guaranteed a privileged place in society for a certain group of people.

That was seen as OK then.

Then, abruptly, southern Democrats felt betrayed by their party and the federal government over a defining issue - Integration - integration in public schools and integration at public lunch counters. The Supreme Court found that black folks were entitled to the same rights as whites, and the federal government was responsible for protecting those rights.

Actually the first bitter seeds were sown under Eisenhower, but soon Kennedy, then Johnson was left in charge of full implementation. Conservatives ran for the hills and deserted the Democratoc Party in droves. In some ways the party has never recovered.

I long ago put my wool hat in mothballs, because I was never sure when to wear it.

I resolved to not be identified by any political party affiliation. I would be undependable when called upon to support the party over conscience. I find myself agreeing with some ideas and disagreeing with others.

I like to think of this as being an Independent. God forbid that Independents ever sucessfully form a formal political party, though. That would just ruin it for everyone.

To be honest, I’m not really sure whether it might be preferable to be a Liberal or a Conservative in the world of politics. There are desirable elements in both positions. Neither, however, has a total lock on reality or a Rosetta Stone for a perfect interpretation of “The Way.”

There was a time when pragmatism ruled politics. In those days, great orators were allowed platforms for displaying their skill. Riveting speeches went into great detail to justify a position. Then, friendly opponents got together and worked out a compromise or traded up or down to get legislation passed. Two things happened. The public was given an opportunity to hear a position laid out in depth, and the congress moved things along.

Not a perfect system, perhaps,but a reasonably effective one. Neither of those things are much in evidence today.

If the U.S. is to survive, and certainly if it is to continue to be a leader among nations, a way must be found to break through the barriers of blind prejudice and ego driven politics. The American model is built upon cooperation while working toward a common goal.

Building moats around hard and fast positions and hurling meaningless insults at one another only insures that hard won gains for our society are put at risk to be undone.

Yelling “Snake!” on a crowded playground may indeed frighten the children for a time.

Yelling “Liberal” may get an unexamined reflex from some people in today’s political arena. but it sure doesn't do much toward solving major problems.

Personally, I don’t mind being called a Liberal. I do, however, reserve my own definition of the term. I also consider myself very conservative in the way I attempt to live my life.

One word definitions are harder to justify than you might think.