• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

By any other name

Anytime Americans are asked to self-identify themselves politically, far more are willing to call themselves conservative (usually in a 40-something percent range, in most of the accounts I've seen) than liberal (from 19 to 22 percent). As a result, far more conservative politicians are willing to call themselves conservative than liberal ones are willing to call themselves liberal. They keep trying new names. "Progressive" was big for a long time, and at an editorial-page-editors' conference I attended a few years ago, the assembled liberal pundits had some fun trying out "communitarianism." Now there's a new name in town:

Ned Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America _ then repeated the phrase 29 times.

The term is "common good," and it's catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what "compassionate conservative" did for the Republicans.

Whatever it's called, it's still the same old nonsense -- what you owe the group instead of what the group owes you, how every solution to a problem that doesn't come from the federal government is suspect, why you can't be trusted to live your own lives until you hear from your betters.

Comments

Doug
Wed, 10/18/2006 - 5:26am

In my mind, it's a mistake to run from a name. The right-wing, primarily radio talk show hosts, have spent many years demonizing the name "liberal." Whatever liberals shift to will be subject to the same sort of concerted demonization. Better to fight back than to run.

Fact is, there are some problems that are more effectively addressed as a community than as individuals. Freedom isn't free, as we hear so often, so to maintain it, we have to pay our dues, unpopular as that may be.

Endless and legitimate policy debates can be had as to the appropriate level of dues and appropriate method of determining one's contribution and determining what level of government is appropriate.

The name-calling is just a way of winning the debates without having to engage in substantive debates on a particular issue. In my humble opinion, of course.

Jeff Pruitt
Wed, 10/18/2006 - 11:23am

Just FYI, this really isn't new - clinton used it during his '92 campaign. Worked pretty well then.

And for your conservative readers there is a difference between a liberal and a progressive. I doubt many care in this black and white world - but there are a few shades of gray. I suppose people don't come here to discuss political theory so I won't bore them w/ the details...

tim zank
Wed, 10/18/2006 - 4:28pm

Jeff, Do you find it difficult to see while looking down your nose at the rest of us?

Thanks for sparing us dolts w/the details.

sheesh

Jeff Pruitt
Wed, 10/18/2006 - 4:54pm

Tim,

If my sarcasm shines through it's because I tire of hearing conservatives talk about something they don't fully understand and don't care to either - that was my point. If you're going to badmouth something then you should at least have a working knowledge of it. Alas, many conservatives don't care, they think they're right - facts and logic be damned.

Leo's post was no less dismissive than mine...

Quantcast