politically sensitive labels

[James A. Landau]

In a message dated  Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:28:21 +1000,  "Prof. R. Sussex"
<sussex at UQ.EDU.AU> writes:

>  As an observer from outside the US, I am intrigued by the way in
>  which neutral words in my political context (Australia) can be used
>  to attack a candidate in the US, perhaps fatally, at least in terms
>  of political aspirations.

I cannot believe that a linguist of your experience would be so naive as to
think that the USA has a monopoly on politically sensitive labels.  Consider
"Papist" in English history, or the way during World War I that the House of
Saxe-Coburg-Gotha had to change its name.

>  A prime example is "liberal", which in the British/Commonwealth
>  tradition is a respected label for centre-right politics, but which
>  in the US can sound like a suspect softness on policy issues

You forget that there is no national political party in the USA named
"Liberal", nor is there one named "Conservative".  (There is one of each in New York
State, but neither has any presence outside New York.)  Hence "liberal" and
"conservative" are not constrained to be applied only to formal members of
formal parties, but rather apply ONLY to ideas/ideologies/biases/prejudices.

The problem with the term "liberal" in the USA is that it has long been
overtaken by events.  The meaning of the term, in US politics, was fairly clear
during say Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration (1933-1945).  But that was more
than two generations ago.  Many of the political battles of Roosevelt's day
are no longer relevant, whereas many of today's issues were not even thought of
in his day.  Unfortunately the word "liberal" has been forced to stay in use
all these years.

Result:  the term "liberal" is no longer meaningful, due to being obsolete.
Example:  most people consider President Clinton to be a "liberal", yet far
from being "tax-and-spend" he put a lot of effort into cutting budget deficits.
By the standards of US politics, that made him a conservative (at least on
this issue).  Yet many of the people who supported Clinton considered themselves
to be liberals, and many of
those who opposed him considered themselves conservatives.

So we have the sight of numerous Clinton-supporters who insist on naming
themselves with the meaningless label "liberal".  Not surprisingly, their
opponents pick up on this self-label, so to them "liberal" is a term of disrespect.

Let me repeat the above paragraph. So we have the sight of numerous
Clinton-dislikers who insist on naming themselves with the meaningless label
"conservative".  Not surprisingly, their opponents pick up on this self-label, so to
them "conservative" is a term of disrespect.

What we have is two sets of partisans, each picking up on an obsolete label
self-chosen by their opponents and turning this label into a perjorative term.

NB: you may not be aware of this, but in the USA "conservative" is every bit
as perjorative as "liberal".


>  I'd also like to know the potential spin status of
>          civil rights
>          progressive
>          civil libertarian
>  - which are harder to pin down.

"Civil rights" is NOT an obsolete term like "liberal".  It has, and has had
since at least the 1950's, the specialized meaning of "race relations".

"Progressive" was a widely-used term in the early 20th century, when it
referred to such things as women voting and Prohibition.  It then, for reasons
unclear to me, dropped out of general usage, last appearing in the national
consicousness in the Progressive Party of 1948.  However, note the "Progressive
Conservative Party" in Canada.

"Civil libertarian" is almost a non-word, since the term "civil liberties" is
almost always associated with the often-controversial American Civil
Liberties Union, which has been very active since at least the 1920's.   If the ACLU
is not involved, then the term "civil liberties" doesn't get used.

               - James A. Landau