Learning to Talk Liberal

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Learning to Talk Liberal

All political movements unconsciously adopt a syntax that becomes unique to that movement. This is neither unusual nor conspiratorial. It happens all the time in non-political circles. For example, those in the computer industry could hold entire conversations that are utterly meaningless to the non-technically initiated. Bureaucrats the world over speak a clumsy jargon-laced language that seems to make sense to them while appearing to us mere citizens the pinnacle of doublespeak. Even academics, whom one would think would place a premium on clear language, favor a dense polysyllabic style that only the initiated can grasp.

Politics is no different. Conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists: all have adopted a style of communicating with each other in which they use a shared syntax that allows efficient and speedy communication with each other. These syntaxes are based on the assumption of shared premises and values. When a conservative uses the word compassion, for example, he probably means a personal moral quality, one that might be expressed by comforting a grieving widow. When a liberal uses the same word, he is almost certainly using it in the "liberal syntax" sense that collapses volumes of information about the perceived relationship of government and the citizenry (i.e. taking money from one citizen and giving to another).

The danger of spending too much time within one’s own political circles is that we tend to forget these basic differences in syntax. When we go out into the big, bad world to communicate our ideas, we forget that we are speaking to people who are not familiar with the conservative syntax. Given the fact that the dominant culture has thoroughly marinated our country with liberal syntax, this explains why solidly "conservative" political candidates come off as weird, goofy, evil, or all three. Take Steve Forbes as an example. He had as solidly conservative a set of ideas as anyone in years, yet he could gain no traction, and came off to the electorate as, at best, a weird wet fish. He never learned to talk liberal, and it cost him big time. Any conservative candidate, if he is to succeed, must learn to handle the syntactical differences, must, in essence, learn to translate conservative ideas using liberal syntax.

There are three basic ways to accomplish this.

Rise above the fray. This was the Reagan technique. Reagan did not often forcefully argue conservative principles in the conservative syntax. He embedded conservatives principles within simplified national principles which transcended partisan syntax. Reagan was often derided as "simplistic" and to a degree this was absolutely, deliberately true. He communicated his ideas to the people in the context of simple, broad themes (such as patriotism) into which were rolled very specific conservative ideas (such as aggressively opposing the Soviet Union and SDI). "Simplistic" notions such as patriotism transcend the liberal/conservative syntactical divide and give those who are not predisposed to listen to conservative syntax a chance to hear.

Be a Compassionate Conservative. This is, obviously, the GW Bush approach. Rather than seeking to transcend liberal syntax, this approach assumes them as a given, essentially conceding that the "culture war" has been won by the other side and that the people are unable to listen to anything other than liberal words. It concedes many of the liberal premises underlying the liberal syntax, seeking instead to magically produce conservative results from liberal premises. The danger in this approach is that a liberalism that results in conservative policy goals is just as liberal as a liberalism that produces liberal policy goals. It is a "cut your losses" tactical approach which, even if successful, will do precious little to change the way things are.

Force a Change in Liberal Syntax. This is a difficult and hence not often pursued approach. It requires going over the head of the culture and convincing the people that the liberal syntax is incorrect. For example, one of the favorite words in the liberal syntax is "fairness". A conservative using this approach could have a field day by attacking his liberal opponent with his own syntactical club. On taxes: Death taxes are downright unfair! A person struggles, works, scrimps and saves his whole life to provide his family with a better future, only to have the government come in when he dies and steal the fruit of his life’s labors. Affirmative action: It is remarkably unfair, and unjust, to deny any person opportunity solely because of the color of his skin. Period. Didn’t we have a Civil Rights revolution to settle this issue? On abortion: It is tragic and unfair to squeeze the life out of an unborn child before she has even had a chance to draw her first breath, to cry her first tear, to smile her first smile. Many other opportunities exist, using such liberal favorites as compassion, justice, equality, rights, etc. My own experimentation has shown that most conservative ideas can be demonstrated effectively through redefined liberal syntax, without diluting or conceding the core principles.

George W. Bush may well win this November using his approach to "talking liberal". Although I am not optimistic about the impact this will have on the national discourse, it does highlight the fact that the road to conservative ascendancy does not lie in "preaching to the choir", it lies in converting the heathen. The early Christians had the good sense to adapt the local customs of the heathen peoples to make the transition to Christianity easier (hence the pagan fertility images associated with Easter, for example). This approach proved remarkably successful for them. It is my contention that a similar approach to conversion can work for conservatives, if we are just willing to give it a go.