When I saw “Conservative Is A Bad Word” as the boldfaced title of Reed Hanson’s Wednesday op-ed, I nearly performed the “Happy Dance” – a gesture of glee reserved only for the happiest moments in my life. Here is Reed Hanson, a devout member of the Young Conservatives of Texas, casting aside the silly “conservative” label and trying to discuss issues of substance without hiding behind rhetorical political labels. I was rapt at first glance, eager to plunge myself into Reed’s insightful prose.Sadly, after actually reading the full piece, I was forced to call my manager and cancel the dance – or at least put it on hold. The title of Hanson’s piece was a misnomer. In fact, the piece was a chance for Hanson to vent his frustration about the recent vilification of the word “conservative,” a catch-all term for his beloved ideology. Instead of clearing the fog in the “conservative” vs. “liberal” debate, Hanson’s piece reinforces it. In “Bad Word,” Hanson defends the iron-clad virtues of “conservatives” and casts aside the evils of “liberals” in a mere 788 words. I left the article with the profound sense that both “conservative” and “liberal” were good words with clear definitions. “Conservative” = Good and “Liberal” = Bad. By the time I read “promise,” Reed’s final word in the article, I had made the full transformation from David Banner to the Incredible Hulk. I was madder than a “conservative” forced to listen to Jesse Jackson speak about Hurricane Katrina for four consecutive hours. The reason for my anger, as you may have guessed, is that I simply don’t like “conservatism.”
That must make me a “liberal,” right? I must be some kind of tree-hugging, soy-milk drinking, fetus aborting, hippie whacko to completely disavow “conservatism.” Sure, I’ve worked on campaigns supporting Democratic candidates and referendums to increase taxes in order to build support for public education. Until recently, I was employed as a door-to-door canvasser to build support for environmental campaigns. So, I must be one of those “liberals” who hates “conservatives.” Right?
I also happen to believe that Miranda v. Arizona was wrongly decided. I support Justice Scalia’s opinion in Dickerson v. United States, where he denounces “Miranda Rights” as prophylactic. In this landmark court case, Scalia’s dissent berates fellow “conservative” justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion, which claims Miranda is based on sound constitutional principle. Many people will tell you that my views on Miranda and criminal law cases in general are radically “conservative.”
As it turns out, I despise “liberalism” as much as “conservatism.” I’m not necessarily opposed to the positions either camp takes, but I am opposed to the nature of debate between the two “ideologies.”
When I hear discussion in popular media between “liberals” and “conservatives” about current issues, I leave with the profound sense that I could have scripted the debate. Ann Coulter will always say that Nancy Pelosi’s policies are garbage. Al Franken will always call George W. Bush dishonest. I watched “Crossfire” religiously for several years of my life. Not once did I ever hear Paul Begala say, “Wow, you make a really good point,” to Bob Novak. I never heard Tucker Carlson agree with James Carville about a substantive governmental plan or policy. When I watch a “debate” show on television today, I see very little “debating” between the “liberal” and “conservative” talking heads. Really, all I see is two people, each equally convinced that their team is right, spit bullet points at one another and refuse to reach any kind of middle ground. When I watch these shows, read these columns and listen to these radio programs, I never experience any kind of surprise. Of course, Michael Moore is going to call Bush’s Social Security plan fascist. Of course, Dick Morris is going to call Hilary Rodham Clinton a heartless, power-hungry politico.
The truth is, this type of discussion is very attractive for people who want to claim a political opinion. If you have a set of core beliefs in line with popular “conservatives” (low taxes, pro-life, pro-military spending) or popular “liberals” (strong social programs, pro-choice, anti-war), it is very easy to join that team. Once part of that team, it is very easy to vilify the other team. In the beginning of his article, Hanson asks, “When exactly did the term ‘conservative’ become so evil?” In the 2004 presidential campaign, I seem to remember the term “liberal” popularly used to describe a certain Massachusetts senator. In the third presidential debate, Bush scoffed, “Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough.” In one fell swoop, Bush categorized Kerry and all “liberals” as opposed to the best interests of the country. When my friends and I discuss politics, the first question about a particular issue or candidate is usually, “Is [Candidate/Issue X] Liberal or Conservative?” The answer admittedly provides some insight on the topic of conversation, but does little to address questions about the broader impact of [Candidate/ Issue X]. Because a person or policy is “liberal” or “conservative” at first glance, it doesn’t mean that he, she or it will stay true to that hard line.
Also, the “liberal” or “conservative” test cannot and will not ever completely define a person’s ideology. Example: Was Pope John Paul II a conservative or a liberal? By most accounts, Pope John Paul II was considered to be one of the most conservative popes in recent history. Where did he stance on the death penalty? Opposed. Where did he stand on the war in Iraq? Vehemently opposed.
A very wise man once told me, “If you are always right, you can never be wrong.” My problem with Hanson does not rest in the ideas he proposes. In fact, we most likely agree on a number of different topics. My problem with “Bad Word” and other modern political opinions from either side of the aisle is embodied in the steadfast refusal to take all opinions into consideration and work to compromise. Political debate is not black and white. Neither the “liberals” nor the “conservatives” can successfully propose a panacea to the nation’s ailments. Organizing the debate into a “Street Fighter”-style brawl where one side is the “winner” and the other is the “loser” is too easy and overlooks the intricacy of the issues that face America today. Political debate in this country would benefit greatly from examining what is best for the United States instead of trying to establish a permanent Republican Majority or prove that Bush lied in the events leading up to the war in Iraq.
In order to make a substantive difference in the shape of American society, we must realize that “conservative” and “liberal” really are bad words. Once we make this step, I will perform the “Happy Dance” for the rest of my days.
Mitchell London is a junior political science major. He may be contacted at [email protected].
