Ask the average person what the opposite of “liberal” is, and the likely response is “conservative.”
But is that true?
As I’ve suggested many times, both of these commonly used political terms are misused and abused, misunderstood to the point of being rendered meaningless. And, on top of that, they’re both “loaded” – perhaps even by design.
I will tell you what the opposite of “liberal” really is, but first let’s discuss what’s wrong with both terms:
- “Liberal” has been hijacked from some of the greatest minds in history – people who would never recognize a descriptive they once used for themselves. For instance, “classical liberalism” was defined at its birth in the 18th century as a political ideology that valued the freedom of individuals – including, but not limited to, freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and markets – as well as limited government. It specifically drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith, now widely pigeonholed rightly or wrongly, as a “conservative” economist. Many of America’s founders considered themselves “classical liberals.” Yet, take that definition today who would embrace it? People who call themselves “conservatives,” certainly not those who call themselves “liberals,” with their war on free markets and advocacy of speech codes and so-called “hate speech” laws.
- “Liberal” today less often used by those inclined to embrace the term than is “progressive.” Today, you hear “conservative” versus “progressive” more often than you hear “liberal” versus “conservative.” Why? Because “liberal” was tarnished in the 1980s by the upsurge of Ronald Reagan-style “conservatism,” not to mention Rush Limbaugh-style “conservativism” in the 1990s. “Liberals” like “progressive” because of its root word, “progress.” Who in their right mind would want to oppose “progress”? “Congress,” perhaps? So the popularization of the term “progressive” put “conservatives” in that box. Notice “progressive” starts with “pro” and “conservative” begins conveniently with “con” – a natural antonym in the making.
- “Conservative” has other disadvantages. A “conservative” in the old Soviet Union or today’s China was or is a hardline totalitarian Communist. How many “conservatives” in America were comfortable with that political association?
- Every Republican presidential candidate following Ronald Reagan swore they were “conservative.” But none were real disciples of Reagan, with the possible exception of Donald Trump. What did Reagan want to conserve? The Constitution, the nation’s individual liberty, free enterprise – all good, original “classical liberal” ideas. Quickly, however, Reagan’s Republican successors were back to bigger centralized government in the name of so-called “compassionate conservatism” – as if the standard variety form of conservativism was non-compassionate.
I could go on comparing and contrasting the political terminology still in vogue today. But you get the idea.
I’m not sure “liberal” means much anymore. I know “progressive” is a misnomer, given that those who embrace it want only, at the end of the day, to foster tyranny – hardly a new concept in the affairs of men. “Conservative” is confusing, to say the least. Does it suggest those who embrace the term want to stand still and conserve the status quo? I don’t think so.
So that brings me to the answer to my quiz. What is the opposite of “liberal” in today’s marketplace of ideas and terminology?
I think I have the most accurate answer.
And all you have to do is change one letter of “liberal” to get there.
You see, today’s “liberals” have a problem with truth, reality, facts. They tend to embrace hyperbole, exaggeration, metaphor. If you doubt me, just think of any speech by Hillary Clinton.
So that brings me to the opposite of “liberal.”
That would be “literal.”
How do you like it? “Liberal” versus “literal.”
Does that clear things up?
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|
