Mallard Fillmore

Fri Oct 8 15:41:09 UTC 2010

>>how did "conservative" come to mean "self-reliant", =
"courageous", "dependable", and liberal to mean "devious", "weak", =
"untrustworthy", etc.?

Heh heh.  Mean for whom?

But seriously.  I suspect it began to take shape in Republican opposition to
the New Deal. (Recall that a right-wing plot by some business leaders to
take over the Federal Government was actually being hatched in 1934.)

I believe it crystallized with Spiro T. Agnew's denunciation of "these
radical-liberals."  As Time reported the Vice President's election-time
remarks (Sept. 21, 1970):

>At Springfield, ILL., he criticized the "caterwauling critics in the
Senate" who oppose the President's Viet Nam policy. They are part of a
"misguided movement—an ultraliberalism that translates into a whimpering
isolationism in foreign policy, a mulish obstructionism in domestic policy,
and a pusillanimous pussyfooting on the critical issue of law and order."
Later he said: "How do you fathom the thinking of those who work themselves
into a lather over an alleged shortage of nutriments in Wheaties, but who
cannot get exercised at all over a flood of hard-core pornography." . . . He
hit at "a disruptive radical and militant minority—the pampered prodigies of
the radical-liberals in the U.S. Senate."<

The catchy compound "radical-liberal" elicited much comment.  A little
earlier, conservatives began advertising their hawkish views on Vietnam by
"co-opting" (as the rad-libs put it) the American flag itself in the form of
bumper stickers, windshield decals, and lapel pins. AIR, the intention
behind the decals and pins was widely advertised. Liberals, too subtle to
dream up such crudity, essentially let the self-described "conservatives" -
which covers a multiplicity of virtues and sins) take the emotional high
ground.

Maybe the final straw was Jimmy Carter's statement that he wasn't afraid of
the Commies anymore. Or maybe it was his failure to nuke Iran for taking the
hostages.  Or failing to nuke Moscow when the Soves moved into Afghanistan
at the end of 1979, Or maybe, just maybe, it was his failure to control the
Iranian weather and personally train the chopper crews in the failed
operation to rescue said hostages in 1980.  Of course, the Iranians released
them almost before Ronald Reagan had finished taking his oath of office.
What more proof do you need that liberals are unpatriotic, cowardly wimps.
And because they're the other popular choice, conservatives are exactly the
opposite!  It's simple!

And don't forget that neither the President or the Vice President who
single-handedly "won the Cold War" believed in any of that evo-lution
stuff.  (As Ms. O'Donnell has said, "not even Darwin believed it. He said it
was only a theory!")

What I find even more disgusting - I mean interesting - is that through
similar but more rapid-fire sleight-of-hand the "Democrat party" is now
magically linked with Wall Street, The Banks, and everything else newly
found to be un-American.  Even though G. W. Bush himself (a
wild-eyed socialist if ever there was one) supported "bailouts" in the few
weeks before he left office.

So blame conservative strategists, a mass-pandering media that
can best convey stories with obvious heroes and villains, a post-Vietnam
public desire for a system in which one party is "good" and the other is
"bad" (like in movies) and a cultural belief that all problems have a
simple, quick, straightforward solution, preferably involving a granite jaw,
a fist of iron, and a fist of steel.

If the left one don't work, the right one will.

Simple.

Please note that very little in this screed has much to do with historically
"conservative" or "liberal" principles.

JL

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:34 AM, David A. Daniel <dad at pokerwiz.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "David A. Daniel" <dad at POKERWIZ.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Mallard Fillmore
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Because conservatives are much better at putting a spin on stuff than
> liberals.
> DAD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf
> Of
> Bill Palmer
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 11:17 AM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Mallard Fillmore
>
>
>
> This is the title of a rightwing political cartoon, which for unknown =
> reasons, is carried in the comics section of the Raleigh News & =
> Observer.
>
> It is dull, unoriginal, and unfunny. However, in a strip last week, the =
> character made the valid point that "conservative" political candidates =
> brag about their conservative position, and include it in their campaign =
> ads, whereas liberal candidates avoid public mention of their =
> liberality.  They don't even use "progressive" in referring to =
> themselves, altho when some characterization is unavoidable, they will =
> generally use that term.
>
> So the point is, and please excuse if this has already been examined in =
> this list, how did "conservative" come to mean "self-reliant", =
> "courageous", "dependable", and liberal to mean "devious", "weak", =
> "untrustworthy", etc.?
>
> Bill Palmer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3183 - Release Date: 10/07/10
> 15:34:00
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

-- 
"If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org