Thursday, March 4, 2010

The Irony of Corrupted Political Language

There is real irony in the political corruption of language now days. This morning's news is that Texas Governor Perry won his primary election. He claims to be a conservative and an anti-liberal, yet he also preaches succession from the United States. If you know the meaning of conservative and liberal, you would see the irony. Can you imagine what Texas will have to do if it is its own country? Try to imagine all the trade laws, tariffs, Texas passports (and U. S. Visas), border patrols and check points Texans will need just for people and goods to cross the Louisiana border, in both directions. Now they pay state and U.S. taxes. Wait until they have to pay for all of the services they will no longer get from the U.S. Government. I can't imagine Texans really wanting that, but most Texan Republicans apparently like the idea. Perry corrupted the meanings of words for his political agenda. In other words, he suckered Texan voters with perverted language.
The same thing happened when California recalled Governor Gray Davis, who was really innocent of all the charges against him, the hottest was being blamed for doubling energy cost. That was when Enron scammed California with a fake energy shortage, Bush's federal energy regulators refused to intervene and Gray Davis took the fall and, of course, we got The Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnie is no Perry, however. He's been a reasonable Governor, but he couldn't fix California because it's broke for other reasons. His hands were tied mainly because we've voted for thousands of contradictory propositions that have changed our State Constitution to the point that we are more like Nicaragua or Ecuador – we (and Arnie) can't poop without offending our Constitution. We tied our own hands. Anarchy.
Definitions from The Free Dictionary:
Perversion, as it applies to perverting language, means: Distortion, twisting, corruption, misuse, misrepresentation, misinterpretation and falsification of language and words.
Liberal means: A political attitude not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, view, or dogmas; free of bigotry. Favoring proposals of reform, open to new ideas of progress, and tolerant of ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. A liberal is generous, unselfish, openhanded, magnanimous and open-minded. The opposite of liberal is stingy, selfish, authoritarian, totalitarian and dictator or monarchy rule. The principals of a liberal democracy, such as the United States, are freedom, justice and equality,
Conservative means: An attitude to conserve traditions, institutions and resources emphasizing stability and continuity and tending to oppose change. Conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism. You can be conservative about some things and still be a liberal. Conservatism is not anti-government. Republicans haven't been conservative for a long time.
Anarchist: A person who advocates the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperation. A person who causes disorder or upheaval. Synonyms are revolutionary, rebel, terrorist, insurgent, nihilist. Anarchy is the absence of any form of political authority, general lawlessness and disorder, especially when thought to result from the absence or failure of government.
Socialism and Capitalism are opposing economic views. The extremes of either systems will ruin a country. In a liberal democracy, there must be social protection, such as Welfare, Social Security and Medicare from the extremes of Capitalism. Left to its own devices in a dog-eat-dog capitalistic market, Capitalism will cause just as much welfare as socialism. Pure Laissez-faire, free market Capitalism lets the losers from mergers and competition die the slow death of unemployment, transitions important national manufacturing skills to cheap labor markets, externalizes costs of production to society, creates monopolizing companies to big to fail and corrupts good government policies. In effect, unrestrained capitalism is anarchy. There must also be protection from extreme socialism, such as provided by a Constitutional Democracy that guarantees limited government, periodic free elections and separation of powers. Socialism stymies economic growth and usually turns into authoritarian or totalitarian government when labor-owned industries can't produce value. The end result is usually less freedom and justice rather than the equality hoped for by the experiment, although a few socialist countries, such as China, seem to become less socialistic in time as their need to compete in capitalistic markets become more important. Moderation in using both will bring better results than denying either of them.
So, you have to wonder what Perry really is. By his own words, his closest fit is anarchist, advocating anarchy, but I doubt that he wants to turn over the power of Governor to mob rule. By his behavior, it's my guess that he wants to be an authoritarian, maybe a dictator. He isn't a conservative. Succession from the Union will certainly not conserve tradition nor institutions in Texas nor will it stabilize it. Succession will be a mess. I think that, in the end, he is simply a con-man, using whatever words he can to keep Texans angry at Washington so he can stay in power. In other words, he's a liar.
Then there is Meg Whitman, California Governor wanna-be. Her slogan is “say what you mean and mean what you say.” What the hell does that mean? Her T. V. sound bytes say “no government” and “tax cuts,” the typical Republican mantra. There is nothing traditional about a “no government” platform when government is necessary, so she's not a conservative. I guess if we want something from our government, or have a government at all, we'll have to pay for it. Meg sounds a lot like Perry. It's just more perversion of language. There's more to it than no government and tax cuts. California needs to start legislating and managing good government. We've already tried anarchy, i.e., mob voting for thousands of contradictory propositions, and tax cuts and we essentially have no, wheel spinning government already.
I guess I'm not entirely liberal since I can't tolerate intolerance. But, if we want an open and broad minded approach to better government, who wouldn't want to be a liberal?

No comments: