Part of the genius of making "liberal" a dirty word in American politics was the malleable definition of a "liberal," which often means "someone in less than complete agreement with the speaker on a given issue." It's the Limbaugh method: if something is good or successful, call it conservative, if it's less good or doesn't work, sneer that it is "liberal."

But with the old Reagan coalition fracturing, the meaning of "conservative" is now in play.

Brooks:

The definition of who was a true conservative narrowed. It became necessary to pass certain purity tests — on immigration, abortion, taxes and Terri Schiavo.

An oppositional mentality set in: if the liberals worried about global warming, it was necessary to regard it as a hoax. If The New York Times editorial page worried about waterboarding, then the code of conservative correctness required one to think it O.K.

Apostates and deviationists were expelled or found wanting, and the boundaries of acceptable thought narrowed. Moderate Republicans were expelled for squishiness. Millions of coastal suburbanites left the party in disgust.

He's confident, or pretending to be, that voters will look past this game and rally behind McCain.

Comments

[Eric]

Charles Barkley summed it up best when he said; "I was a Republican-until they lost their minds."

[Jeffrey Sykes]

The decline of Limbaugh, et al, can't come too soon for me.

This, from Brooks' article, is relevant as well:

"The lesson is not that the conservative establishment is headed for the ash heap. The lesson is that the Republican Party, even in its shrunken state, is diverse. Regular Republican voters don’t seem to mind independent thinking. There’s room for moderates as well as orthodox conservatives. Limbaugh, Grover Norquist and James Dobson have influence, but they are not arbiters of conservative doctrine."

[Jon]

Ed, my read on transformation of "liberal" to a "dirty word" is that it was coopted by, and irreparably tarnished from association with, people who favor more government intervention in people's lives as opposed to less.

I wrote this explanation for when in the interest of clarity, the present conception forces me to use the word "liberal" in a way that is historically inaccurate, to say the least: www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/index.html?day=1&month=1&year=2004

[Ed Cone]

Thnx, Jon -- I know it's a source of frustration to some folks, but the historical usage has long since been supplanted, or at least overshadowed, by the more modern understanding of what it means to be "liberal", which of course includes some arguments for less government intervention in people's lives (e.g., liberalization of laws governing private behavior).

I don't think for a minute that the sneering use of "liberal" by Limbaugh et al was driven by nostalgia for the historical definition.

[Jon]

Ed, I wasn't speaking about Limbaugh et al., just about the bastardization of a great word. And whereas I applaud [contemporary liberals] in their infrequent arguments for less government intervention, I cannot consider their politics on the aggregate liberal.

But current political labels are confused, anyway: "conservatives" seek to abolish many government practices; Democrats are republican; Republicans, democrats; and libertarians -- well, that word is replete with so much connotational confusion that I've known people who are essentially socialist in outlook describe themselves as "libertarian" on the sole issue of their support for legalizing marijuana.

[Ed Cone]

"current political labels are confused"

yep -- and even when relatively clear, often too limited or limiting to describe an individual or a worldview in a satisfying or holistic way -- which takes me back to the Limbaugh approach: oversimplification in order to reduce the world to opposing teams.

[Spag]

"oversimplification in order to reduce the world to opposing teams." A crime I'm sure that only Republicans or "conservatives" commit. Liberals crying over being labeled as such can't be taken seriously in light of the names they have labeled conservatives with- bigots, racists, homophobes, sexists, etc.

But I agree that the meaning of the word conservative and liberal for that matter is relative in modern political discourse, although I believe history provides enough examples of both to make an accurate determination.

The fact is that most "conservatives" are really "neoconservatives" and that isn't the same as the historical definition.

[Ed Cone]

Of course both "liberal" and "conservative" can be applied in reductive ways. I've argued that point many times at this blog.

It's not about crying over being called a "liberal," but arguing against reducing a complex and variable meaning to a simplistic slur.

Bigots, racists, homophobes, and sexists do exist; some self-identify as conservatives, but none of those terms is synonymous with "conservative." The terms may sometimes be unfairly or inaccurately applied to conservatives in general, but I'm unaware of a long-term, concerted effort to redefine "conservative" as Limbaugh and Co. have done to "liberal."

[Spag]

What exactly is the "slur" of being called a liberal? What is the derogatory meaning of the word used as you describe it to be used by Limbaugh and others?

I agree with you on some level about the usage of "liberal" if you apply it to Hannity who throws it out there indiscriminately and his case, with little or no explanation. I disagree more that it applies to Limbaugh who almost always explains his usage/definition of the word when he uses it.

[Ged Maheux]

Let's not forget these gems:

Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism

Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right

and

Godless: The Church of Liberalism

All from the person who's perhaps done more to turn the word "Liberal" into a slur, Ann Coulter.

[Bubba]

Ged forgot to mention "Liberal Fascism", which is the subject of the current Whine of the Week.

[Ed Cone]

The slur is making "liberal" a synonym for just about anything bad, rather than criticizing a particular policy or issue. Limbaugh's been doing it for years.

Here's a lovely example.

More.

More

Bonus: Gingrich

Bonus: Savage.

Bonus: A reader.

[David Hoggard]

Sam, when you ask "What exactly is the "slur" of being called a liberal?", suggests that perhaps you aren't paying very close attention.

The word 'liberal' has definitley become a dirty word. But so has the term "conservative".

I can't give you the 'exact' slurs that have contributed to the word 'liberal's derogatory useage because my available time for Googleing is nill of late, but a slur it has certainly become.

Perhaps you won't find a smoking gun from Rush or others, but, if you are truthful and paying attention, you will detect a poisonous gaseous emmission over time that permeates the political air to a relative degree that is akin to an 'us vs. them' bent. This bent has undeniably caused the word to become a slur in common useage.

But, it should be noted, the descriptor "conservative" has become just as poisonous and marginalizing by the loyal "liberal" opposition.

In the current crap that passes for political commentary on our airwaves, being called a 'Conservative' means you are an asshole. Being called a "Liberal" means you are an asshole, too.

Surely you sense this to be true?

[Spag]

But how is the term "liberal" not being accurately described in those examples? Limbaugh saying the VA Tech shooter "had to be a liberal" may be entirely irrelevant, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

What part about the descriptions of liberals is false or derogatory?

Your argument seems to be that the quantity of usage is derogatory because the examples you cite don't seem to claim anything that isn't true or at least arguably true.

If Limbaugh says ten times an hour "liberals want to raise your taxes" is that making "liberal" a bad word?

Savage and Coulter are using shock value to buy books, but the Left does the same thing "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" etc. Still, Savage always explains why he thinks something is a liberal idea and what is wrong with it.

If the idea isn't truly liberal, then you may be on to something, but I haven't seen anything yet that claims the word is being incorrectly used and equated with something that is actually derogatory and unfairly associated with the word.

[Ged Maheux]

And let's not forget this gem from Jaycee over at Spag's own blog:

“Most illegal drug users are liberals. I think mental deficiencies go hand-in-hand with drug abuse.”

and

“Liberals by and large are far more self-absorbed, self-centered and hedonistic than most conservatives.”

Which spawned a nice, long thread about the causal use of the term "liberal" as a slur.

But somehow Sam is having a hard time understanding what we're all referring to here.

[Spag]

I am missing the slur in calling someone a liberal who is in fact a liberal as demonstrated by a given set of facts. "How dare you tell the truth about my position and beliefs" isn't really a strong argument that one is being unfairly maligned.

If you are saying that Limbaugh and others unfairly label people and positions as "liberal", that is a different subject. The word itself doesn't simply become derogatory unless associated with something considered derogatory, and if people consider it derogatory it is because they don't like what it stands for. Now if Limbaugh is wrong in his examples or what it stands for, then you may be on to something.

Same thing with "conservative". It's only a bad word to people who don't agree with it.

[Ged Maheux]

Sam, so you're saying that Limbaugh labeling the VT shooter a "liberal" before anyone knew anything about him wasn't a slur to liberals? I just want to be clear on this point. He killed people so Rush said he *had* to be a liberal. How is that not a slur?

[Spag]

So Ged, are you saying Jaycee's comments are false, irrelevant, or both? If Jaycee were to cite a statistic that showed liberals were in fact more likely to use drugs, be self absorbed or hedonistic, and that it somehow was related to their liberal value system, would that still be unfair? Or what if he didn't have any facts, but constructed a logical argument nonetheless about how liberal values are related to those items, is that unfair? He may be wrong, but is he being unfair?

[Spag]

Ged, it wasn't a slur to liberals, it was just dumb. But what if Limbaugh was right, and the guy did buy into class warfare rhetoric associated with the left and that inspired him to do what he did? Does that mean liberalism killed people? No, but it also doesn't mean Limbaugh's analysis was off base.

Go look up "Timothy McVeigh" and "Right Wing" before you continue to bark up the wrong tree.

What I am hearing is "Limbaugh and others are telling the truth about what we believe and what we stand for and ideas that are closely associated with liberalism and that has turned "liberal" into a dirty word". Maybe it's a dirty word because a lot of people think liberalism is a dirty concept. Has that ever occurred to you?

The same way many on the left believe conservatism is a dirty concept.

[Ged Maheux]

"So Ged, are you saying Jaycee's comments are false, irrelevant, or both? "

Go read your own thread again Sam. Anthony pretty much nailed the argument there despite what you or Jaycee may think to the contrary. I'm not going to re-hash the subject again.

As for Rush, the point is he made an assumption based on his biased, stereotypical beliefs about liberals. That's the entire point and you know it.

As I said before, someone might say that most conservatives are closet homosexuals and pedophiles. Statistics may prove them right. So I assume, by your logic that's okay to assume that the next person who is thrown in prison for sexually preying on kids is a conservative. Right?

[Spag]

What part of Limbaugh's assumptions were stereotypes? If I say "liberals are for higher taxes" am I stereotyping?

If you say that the next person thrown in prison for child molesting is probably a conservative, you aren't going to here me whine about how you are turning conservativism into a bad word. I might think your statement is ignorant without more analysis, e.g., "Conservatives believe in X. This guy believed in X. Because he believed in X, it caused him to commit Y". Now suppose statistics showed that homosexuals and pedophiles (I don't really get the homosexual relevance to pedophilia- but you put it out there) who were NOT in the closet were liberals, would that mean that the next person thrown in prison for preying on children must be a liberal, or would that mean that the determining factor wasn't ideology, but rather whether the person was out of the closet or not? And what would that tell us about child molesters and ideology?

Your example is quite different than "Timothy McVeigh was a right wing extremist who hated the federal government. As a result of his hatred, he blew up a federal building." Or "the VA Tech killer was a liberal who believed that rich people were evil. His animosity towards rich people was fueled by liberal rhetoric about the unfairness of wealth distribution. As a result of his liberal ideology, he killed a bunch of people that he thought were rich to get even." That may not be the case, but it could have been.

It was dumb for Limbaugh to say it because he attempted to assign that behavior to all liberals, and didn't have the facts. But that was no worse than people assigning McVeigh's behavior to Rush Limbaugh and conservatives.

It cuts both ways, the difference is that liberals are whining about it, and in many cases it is over simple usage that is rooted in truth, such as tax policy, and social attitudes. What I am hearing is "we're liberals, but don't call us that if you are going to criticize our beliefs because we don't want liberalism to be associated with criticism." Of course, the remedy is "well, we called ourselves liberals for all these years, and then Limbaugh and Co. came along and told people the truth about what we believe and made "liberal" a dirty word for a lot of people. Everytime they use the word "liberal" now, they use it to criticize us for a particular belief. We need a new word that isn't tainted by the truth- I know- progressive! We'll call ourselves progressives, and instead of the left wingers that we are with all of our out of the mainstream positions, people will think we have changed and associate us with Teddy Roosevelt! We may be able to get away with this for another 30 years or so until people realize it is a rose by any other name!"

[Dave Dobson]

Sam, nearly every time these talk-radio guys talk, they're using "liberal" not to mean "person who supports government programs and civil rights," but in the same way people use "faggot." To designate a class of people they hate with a term they consider derogatory and demeaning. Same tone, same inflection, same usage, same sneer. Just listen sometime.

Hoggard is right that "conservative" is commonly used the same way on the left, but I'd have to argue not as much and not as nastily, at least in what I've heard and read (and I spent a whole summer processing fetal bovine serum in a lab where the head tech put Limbaugh on every day).

[Spag]

Okay Dave, if "they" consider it derogatory and demeaning which I'm sure they do, why should you care? They consider it derogatory and demeaning for a reason. That's why I am puzzled about this whole thread. Nobody has come forward yet and said that "they" are putting forth a false basis. When Limbaugh attacks "liberals" and demeans them, it is usually because he doesn't agree with what they stand for. That's politics. What's the problem?

If you "hate" the Dallas Cowboys, you're not expected to speak of them in glowing terms. If you say the Dallas Cowboys cheat when they don't, and you then equate cheating with the Dallas Cowboys, then perhaps someone might have a legitimate complaint about you using false information to smear the Cowboys. But nobody has said the Limbaugh is lying about liberal beliefs or policy positions- rather the complaint seems to be that he complains too much and isn't nice about it.

Boo hoo.

[Dave Dobson]

Sam, if people hate your guts and use a name for your group in a hateful, demeaning way, then to a segment of the population, it becomes a smear.

The tone and usage matters, Sam. If you called a gay man a "homosexual" in the same tone that Michael Savage uses the word liberal, I'm guessing he'd probably punch you in the head, and be justified in doing so. But homosexual does nothing but describe his actual sexuality, right? No big deal.

Quit being so deliberately disingenuous. The fact that these guys do this, and have airtime, turns useful descriptive words into slurs and changes their meaning. Have you, when having a particularly happy day, told anyone you felt gay? I doubt it.

[Spag]

Sorry Dave, I stand by my argument. Using "liberal" in a derogatory fashion when discussing actual liberal positions is fair game. You really sound like you are whining. You failed so far to point out any example, or more appropriately a sustained pattern of examples where Limbaugh used the word "liberal" without applying it to liberal behavior or out of context.

[Ed Cone]

Sam, Limbaugh's been on the air for a long time. I've listened to hundreds of hours of his show. You are demanding proof that a central element of his schtick actually exists. Clear examples from Limbaugh and others have been provided in this thread, but you keep saying "show me." There are none so blind as those that will not see.

The twisting of the word is a way of controlling the debate by skipping past issues and labeling people with whom you may disagree on an issue as bad (or even homicidal or mentally ill or traitors).

It is whatever the Latin for an ad hominem against a group is.

The payoff comes when, say, an election hinges on tax policy.

You don't have to debate the merits of the policy, you can just say, "that guy's a liberal," and after years of hearing that liberals are bad (to the point that they can be caricatured as homicidal or mentally ill or traitors)some people will just vote against the liberal.

It's not about tagging people for their liberal tax policy -- nothing wrong with that -- it's about demonizing a group and using the resulting atmosphere of label-driven hostility to avoid discussing the actual issues.

[Spag]

Calling me blind because you can't point out where Limbaugh has actually lied about liberalism is an attempt to undermine the futility of your argument.

It's about trashing the Dallas Cowboys because you don't like the way the Cowboys play, the way their front office operates, or the attitude of the players. If after hearing your complaints, others also look at the Cowboys in a bad light that is the Cowboys fault unless they are being lied about.

Why does the word "dogshit" get such a bad rap? Not because it's called "dogshit", but because it smells. You want to blame people who call it "dogshit" for its bad reputation when it isn't the usage of the word that is causing the bad rap.

Limbaugh discusses the "actual issues" and explains his "liberal" label every time. If that leaves a bad taste in someone's mouth, it's because they don't like what is being described. Blaming Limbaugh for the fact that a large segment of the population doesn't like what the term "liberal" stands for suggests that maybe it isn't the word itself that is the problem. Deal with it.

[jimcaserta]

How accurate is this statement: "The whole point of conservatism is to lift the downtrodden. The whole point of liberalism is to keep 'em suppressed and then lower the rich and punish achievement! It's so damned obvious all you have to do is take a look at what they say and what they propose! The economy is going great. ..."

[jimcaserta]

Source of previous quote From less than 2 weeks ago. The basic idea of the debate breakdown - "Thompson Finally Comes Alive" To find more nuggets of wisdom

There are many ideas that when first brought up were very liberal and are now very mainstream - public schools, social security, medicare.

I don't shy away from being called liberal, but am really frustrated by book titles like "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" There are lots of liberal people who very much believe in God and are faithful in their religous practice (likewise there are athiest, or at least non-practicing conservatives). By saying all A have trait B, you are labeled A, so you must also be B. The assumption is false, making the second statement, likewise false. I think overall, we need to raise tax rates, which Sam recently responded was to 'soak the rich', which anyone who has actually met me in person would laugh at that idea. Maybe it's because I think we should run a balanced budget? Didn't a Bush raise taxes to try to balance the budget? Is he a liberal? Well, maybe by Rush's & today's loose definition.

The republican I like the best is McCain, and am anxious to see Rush's reaction if he gets the nomination.

[Bubba]

Sam, let's make a deal with these folks.

If they stop telling lies about conservatives, we stop telling the truth about liberals.

[Jim Saintsing]

Ad gregem.

[Ed Cone]

"Ad gregem."

[response 1] Gesundheit.

[response 2] Yes, it is egregious, that's what makes denying it so funny.

[response 3] Thanks for the Latin lesson.