politically sensitive labels

[Laurence Horn]

At 12:18 PM -0500 3/10/04, James A. Landau wrote:
>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.

Very true, but some of the points below are not without spin. For example,

(1)  I think most American observers would disagree with the claim
that 'in the USA "conservative" is every bit as perjorative as
"liberal"'; for whatever reasons (and discerning the reasons would
itself be an exercise in controversy), "conservative" is not as
pejorative as "liberal", and hasn't been for a couple of decades.  No
Republicans run away from the former label (which is not deemed the
"C-word"), while Democrats--AND Republicans--have been shunning "the
L word" (and not in the new Showtime sense) for decades.  In fact,
"progressive" is sometimes used instead.

(2)  If the term 'civil rights' indeed  "has, and has had since at
least the 1950's, the specialized meaning of "race relations"', we
wouldn't be able to now debate, as we do, civil rights for gays and
other minority groups.  Granted, the racial references do
predominate, but I don't think there has been true semantic narrowing
here.

(3)  A quick and dirty google inspection suggests that the claim that
_civil liberties_ "is almost always associated with the
often-controversial American Civil Liberties Union" may be accurate
if "almost always" conveys about 20-25% of the time.

larry horn, knee-jerk liberal



>   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