Political labels are invariably misleading
Even wise and learned people are capable of saying stupid things. I was reminded of this recently when I came upon something once said by Jacques Barzun — who is certainly wise and learned enough: “A man who has both feet planted firmly in the air can be safely called a liberal as opposed to the conservative, who has both feet firmly planted in his mouth.”
It is actually hard to know quite what to think of this. It would seem to suggest that the difference between a liberal and a conservative is that the former is a fool and the latter a klutz. Oh, I know, I know. True-blue liberals will say that it only suggests that liberals are idealists and conservatives are, well, ill-spoken dolts (hardly a description of the late William F. Buckley, Jr.).
Have it your way if you like, but if I were given the choice — admittedly unappealing — I think I’d rather be a Mr. Malaprop than someone standing on his head all day.
Be that as it may, one person I am sure would object to Barzun’s differentiation is someone he and I both admire: Albert Jay Nock. Here is what Nock has to say on the subject:
Conservatism is a habit of mind which does not generalize beyond the facts of the case in point. It considers those facts carefully, makes sure that as far as possible it has them all in hand, and the course of action which the balance of fact in that case indicates as necessary will be the one it follows; and the course indicates as unnecessary it not only will not follow, but will oppose without compromise or concession.
Do not think that this is a case of a conservative defining his position to his own advantage. This definition appears in a essay called “A Little Conserva-tive.” The essay was prompted, Nock says, because “I was mildly astonished to hear the other day that a person very much in the public eye, and one who would seem likely to know something of what I have been up to during all these years, had described me as ‘one of the most intelligent conservatives in the country.'”
The reason for Nock’s astonishment was that “for more than a quarter of a century I have been known, in so far as I was known at all, as a radical.” When called upon “to label myself with reference to particular social theories or doctrines,” he had described himself as “an anarchist, an individualist, and a single taxer.”
Nock’s essay takes its title from a patter song in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Iolanthe:
I often think it’s comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liber-al
Or else a little Conserva-tive.
The point of his essay is that such labels are invariably misleading and that we should simply stop using them and ignore them when they are used by others. In the case of conservatism, precisely because it is a habit of mind and not a coherent philosophy, it is ‘unserviceable” as a label. It is, he says, “easily weaseled into an imposter-term or a term of reproach, or again into one of derision, as implying a complete stagnation of mind” (which would seem to be what Barzun was doing).
Politicians and the media use such words, Nock suggests — and I heartily agree — in order to short-circuit thought among the citizenry. A good way to start pushing back against this, I think, would be to consider another distinction Nock makes. It is common to suppose that the word conservative is the antithesis of the word radical. It is not. The antithesis of radical is superficial. What could be more superficial than to turn one’s thinking and acting into an array of pigeonholes?
Latest posts by Frank Wilson (Posts)
- An illusion of precision - September 9, 2015
- Watching the passing scene - October 28, 2013
- To see like a child - June 26, 2013
- Riffing and digressions - January 21, 2013
- Life is a parenthesis between one darkness and another - September 13, 2012
Print This Post
It would follow then if an approximation of liberal is idealist and an approximation of conservative is pragmatist then a healthy mix of the two in our government should produce excellent results. However, it seems that both sides are idealists while at the same time pragmatists. By that I mean both sides cater to the idealism of each side and pragmatically grow their own power in the process. Maybe I’m just a cynic. It seems your idea of moving on beyond labels is an appealing endeavor. I shall give it a shot.
I think what you say is correct precisely because the two sides think – if you can call it that – according to the the labels, which are mostly used to obscure rather than illuminate what they are up to. To play the label game is to play their game, and that game is fixed.
Frank, I can understand your concerns about labels because of their tendency toward imprecision and generalization; however, even though you seem uncomfortable with labels, I stand on the side of supporting them because of their utility. For the moment, setting aside the conservative and liberal labels as they are applicable to political and social attitudes, let me offer an example as illustration in support of my point: as someone in the academy (in a university English department), I am aware that some colleagues will label me as something of a hybrid between old-fashioned New Criticism and old-fashioned Structuralism, but I am not uncomfortable with those labels because they somewhat accurately communicate something (forewarn others) about my general critical attitudes toward literature; I am also aware that I would be uncomfortable if someone were to label me as Marxist because of what that label suggest (and presuppose) about my critical attitudes. Thus, labels—even though sometimes imprecise and unspecific—can have sensible utility; in the case of literary studies, people who view me as the aforementioned hybrid have a good head start on where to begin with me when we talk about literature because of the vocabulary and “philosophy” embraced by my critical perspectives. Now, with that example as the foundation, I would argue that conservative and liberal labels are similarly useful. When someone presents himself (or someone presents him) either as a liberal or a conservative, I have an early insight into what may be the political and social attitudes that serve as foundations for his vocabulary and “philosophy.” This early understanding becomes the starting point from which he and I can discuss and argue issues. Moreover, since the goal of argument is either persuasion (with one side eventually either prevailing upon or yielding to another) or consensus (two opponents eventually agreeing upon common grounds), the early understanding of the audience because of the label (either conservative or liberal) becomes essential in advancing any discussion and argument. This takes us back to my English department example; if the Marxist knows that I am a New Critic, she has a starting point for our discussions and arguments, but if the label (even though it might be a bit imprecise or general) does not exist, she and I waste a lot of time sorting out the essential vocabularies and “philosophies” that will be involved in our discussions and arguments. So, the bottom line is this: even with the shortcomings of labels, I embrace them (cautiously and objectively) because of their essential utility.
You offer a useful corrective, R.T. Obviously we are going to have a hard time communicating if we dispense entirely with categories. What you point out is that they can be used in a way that advances thought. Nock’s point is that, too often, especially in the realm of politics, they can be used to obscure or even obliterate it. (Barzun’s quote, I think, demonstrates this.) Long ago, when I worked for a conservative organization (rather a prominent one), I often heard discussions regarding “libertarian conservatives” and “authoritarian conservatives.” The categorization can itself become divisive and more time is spent drawing distinctions than advancing thought or a cause. So I guess in the long run, labels are like women: you can’t live with them, and you can’t live without them. (Now that should get me into a lot of trouble!)
While I agree that between to learned individuals such as yourselves labels can have some utility, I think the larger point may be that too often people are intellectually lazy and use the label to identify themselves. So what ends up is that a person then inculcates their belief pattern and emotions based on the group identity. This has been proven to me in practice when I actually sit and speak with people about politics. They invariably agree with most libertarian thought processes and yet still label themselves one way or the other. It is a label they have chosen for themselves and they are loathe to throw it away for another, unfamiliar one because they are too lazy to articulate what they really think.
Jeffrey, you make a good point, and I would respond by saying this (based on my own self-labeling as New Critic in literature and Conservative in politics, society, and religion): I constantly reevaluate my own “label,” and I make certain that my approaches to literature (and politics, society, religion, etc.) are under constant self-scrutiny; moreover, I remain open to revision and growth (for myself) and consensus (with others).
R.T., I can only agree with your viewpoint if you include the necessity for precision in labeling or categorizing—but that’s also Frank’s point, if I read between the lines, that most people do not use labels precisely or accurately. They use them as bludgeons in the usual Us vs. Them rhetorical battles—bludgeons rather than scalpels.
Your idea of sensible utility in labeling seems completely rational and logical, yet most labels are thrown around in discourse, especially in social and political discourse, as ways of triggering an emotional response rather than a rational one. It’s one thing to be called a Marxist in mostly well-behaved intellectual circles, it’s quite another thing to have someone yell “Faggot!” at you when you’re walking down the street.
Political discourse lately has been more like the latter; for example, the use of the outcry “Socialism!” by the far right whenever the center tries to make something happen for the common wellbeing.
But Art, if it is the “center” trying to make something happen, why does every poll suggest 54 percent of the people oppose the health care bill passed with votes only from one party (opposition was bi-partisan)? And only about 34 percent approve? Where is this center located exactly? And is not the phrase “far right” – at least in this context – the sort of labeling I think we both deplore? Other polls indicate that 87 percent of those questioned like their health-care plans. As someone who is on Medicare, I find the presumption that the government can run heath care well is downright risible.
As someone who has no health insurance, and can’t get any because I have a pre-existing condition, but who is also well-educated yet unable to work because of said pre-existing condition, I think those who approve of health care as it currently exists uniformly already have coverage. In some cases they don'[t want it meddled with because they fear losing it, or having to pay more for it. It is the rest, who don’t have insurance, or can’t get it, or their allies who feel compassion for those less well off than themselves, who really want things to change, and are trying to make it happen. Uniformly, these folk are not on the libertarian-dominated far right of things.
Of course I agree with you that labels are a problem: but what else do we have to try to explain this situation to one another? What else do we have to explain ourselves? It’s not our fault that political rhetoric has become dominated by the soundbyte, or spin, or emotion rather than logic. What am I left with?
Where lies the center? In my view, it lies with those who know the system is broken, that Congress is very much under the thumb of the vested interests, mot least of these the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and do not feel that health care should be a political issue, but a social and civil rights issue. Which it genuinely is. It is not those in the center who cry out “Socialism!” whenever a change for the common good is proposed, no matter who proposes it. My sister and her husband live in the Netherlands, where the socialized medical system has literally saved their lives in recent years: and given them medical support they never would have received had they, even as US citizens, been living in the US. My brother in law was laid off work, as was I, but he still has medical coverage no matter what, whereas I do not.
Pretty much everyone I know in the political center expresses dislike of the current health care “reform” bill, pointing out that it really isn’t much of a reform or change, while at the same time appreciating that symbolically something HAS to be done. Perhaps defining the center is really a matter of realizing that many issues that have become poltiicized are not really political issues, but universal human needs.
I think the question, Art – I happen to be writing a piece about it just now – is why presume that the state is the best agent for dealing with the problem. I am sure you are familiar with Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid. Kropotkin was certainly libertarian, but he was a man of the left. A further question is why has the left abandoned its libertarian roots in favor of centralized authoritarian government and maximum leaders?