One Geek's Opinion:

This essay has been sitting in my in-box, sent from myself to myself, for seven years.

The biggest single reason why this country has, for almost my entire lifetime, had such a crisis of rampant extremism is that we have had, for about that long, a crisis of abused language, or more specifically, of language abused in such a way as to benefit extremists and discredit those with more moderate points of view. When reactionaries describe themselves as "conservative," not only are they making themselves seem more reasonable than they actually are; they are also discrediting those who actually fit the classical definition of "conservative" by making them seem less reasonable than they actually are, which benefits doctrinaire leftists. Likewise, when doctrinaire leftists describe themselves as "liberal," not only are they making themselves seem more reasonable than they actually are; they are also discrediting those who actually fit the classical definition of "liberal" by making them seem less reasonable than they actually are, which benefits reactionaries.

So what do the words really mean?

When a person is liberal, it really means that the person is educated, and inclined to be open-minded about political, social, or economic change, at least so long as it appears to be generally beneficial. It means that the person is inclined to be generous rather than mean. A gentleman (or gentlewoman), rather than a knave. Hence the term, "Liberal Arts": those areas of knowlege, particularly the Humanities and the Social Sciences, that prepare one to be an educated, open-minded citizen. (And herein lies another example of semantic abuse: Bob Jones University, as notorious for its active promotion of bigotry, religious fundamentalism, and generally reactionary attitudes, as it is for wearing its non-accredited status as if it were a badge of honor, rather than a mark it shares with cult indoctrination centers and "diploma mills" alike, describes itself, in its own website, as a "liberal arts university," which seems like the very antithesis of what they really are.) In particular, "liberal" does not mean that the person seeks to punish the wealthy, or the successful, simply because they're wealthy or successful; neither does it mean that the person is inclined to try and suppress points of view they happen to disagree with. Such a person is a doctrinaire leftist, or perhaps even a revolutionary.

Likewise, when a person is conservative, it really means that the person is cautious about change, and not given to rashness. It means that the individual, in the absence of a clear reason for change, prefers to maintain the status quo. It very specifically does not mean that the person seeks to reverse the course of social, political, or economic change in order to benefit himself or herself, and those with whom he or she identifies. Such a person is a reactionary, or perhaps even a counter-revolutionary.

But the semantic problems don't end there. In particular, extremists on both sides have given "moderate" a negative connotation. Instead of what it really means, i.e., given to well-reasoned points of view, whether liberal, conservative, or centrist, rather than to extremism, they have given many people a perception that any politician who not only claims to be moderate, but actually lives up to that, tends to "waffle" or "flip-flop" unpredictably on issues, and does not truly stand for anything other than whatever special interest most recently (and most lucratively) greased his or her palm. Of course they stand for something: they stand for reason, and for considering all the alternatives, and for seeking the most beneficial solution to any problem. (Besides which, most extremists are very happy to take your money, and argue with near-fanatical conviction on your behalf, as long as your point of view isn't directly opposed to theirs.)

But that's just one geek's opinion.

James H. H. Lampert
July 21, 2004

Back Home