Leftists, Liberals, and Progressives

It seems to me that if the left were dealing straight, they would not play poker with words. As George Orwell showed in both 1984 and his essay “Politics and the English Language,” tinkering with the language is the first refuge of the political scoundrel. It is the first way to put something over on the public.

Take, for example, their violent abduction of the word “liberal” to describe their own positions. In fact, there is nothing liberal about them. “Liberal” implies an overriding concern with basic freedoms and individual rights—in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, “(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform.”

This is a far better description of the Conservative than the Liberal party in Canada; and far closer to the Republicans than the Democrats in the US.

Who favours the right to bear arms, Charlton Heston or Michael Moore?

Who championed individual over group rights, John “No hyphenated Canadians” Diefenbaker or Pierre “Multiculturalism” Trudeau? Who supports “affirmative action,” systematic and enforced employment and advancement by group identity?

Who champions free speech, Ezra Levant or Warren Kinsella? Who invented “hate laws,” “speech codes,” and “politically correct” speech?

Who introduced free trade, the Liberals or the Conservatives? Who now talks of tearing up the deal, John McCain or Barack Obama?

Who supports the right to life? Who is against the individual liberty to smoke? To hunt? Who is more reliable in defending the right to property? Life, liberty, property—check. Those are John Locke's big three.

The problem is that “socialism” is such an unpopular word.

But using a new word never fixes the problem—because the original word was unpopular for a reason. Now the left has hopelessly tarnished what was once a very honourable term; nobody any more wants to use the word “liberal” either. A leftish friend of mine this morning instead employed the more recent euphemism “progressive,” explicitly contrasting it with “right-wing.”

But surely a “progressive” should, at a minimum, believe in human progress? And who is eternally convinced in the face of all evidence that the world is going to hell in a shopping cart? If not straight into nuclear holocaust, or overpopulation, or running out of oil, or ozone depletion, or pollution, or running out of water, or into global warming, or somehow, no matter how, descending into poverty, disease, and starvation? Who is broadly fearful of the future, and who is not?

By actual survey, consistently, Democrats are; Republicans are not. Republicans, therefore, are more progressive than Democrats.

Aw heck, why stop? Who opposes development generally? Who favours “conservation”? Who commonly opposes new technologies and efficiencies like genetically modified organisms, nuclear energy, outsourcing, plastics, globalization, increasing automation, new hydro installations, new anything? Who considers change per se bad (hint: check speech transcripts. Two words: David Suzuki)? Never mind human progress; who actually wants fewer human beings?

Perhaps the best contrast, given all this, is not “right” versus “progressive,” as my friend would have it, nor “right” versus “liberal.” Perhaps it's simpler than that. The devil being the father of lies, perhaps it ends up being just “right” versus “wrong.”

One begins to wonder, after all, what it is they themselves so badly want to hide.