I am not a Libertarian or an Objectivist. But I do agree with much of what Harry Binswanger says here. (HT: C. Cathcart) I've been harping on similar themes for years. I'll pull some quotations.
. . . since words *are* the tools of language, they are the tools of thought. That means you must resist unto death using the terminology of your enemy. The side that controls language controls thought.
Or as I have said more than once, "He who controls the terms of the debate controls the debate."
This is why it is utter folly for a conservative to acquiesce in such misbegotten terminological innovations as 'Islamophobia' and 'Islamophobe.' These are question-begging leftist coinages the whole purpose of which is to stymie serious discussion. A phobia is an irrational fear. To accuse someone of being an Islamophobe is to imply that he is irrational and beyond the pale of rational discussion, when it is most eminently rational to sound the alarm concerning Islam.
If you are a conservative, don't talk like a 'liberal'!
As for 'liberal,' Binswanger talks sense:
"Liberal" is another word that is booby-trapped. Joe Lieberman is the last living liberal--a museum piece, really. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Paul Krugman, and the rest are not liberals but Leftists, if you want a shorter term than "anti-capitalists." Today's Leftists have nothing of substance in common with those we used to know as "liberals"--JFK, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson.
The word "liberal" derives from "liberty." Liberty is the last thing on the mind of today's Leftists. They seek to stamp out not only economic freedom but freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Just make a visit to your local university. The term "liberal" should never be used for people whose driving ideology is, to use a proper term, statism.
Exactly right. Accurate terms to describe our ideological opponents are leftist, statist, and totalitarian, but not progressive. If you use 'liberal,' do as I do and put sneer quotes around it. There is little that is liberal about contemporary 'liberals.' Is that not obvious by now?
It is the totalitarian nature of the Left and of Islam that helps explain what is otherwise rather puzzling, namely, the fact that leftists are tolerant of Islam even in its most violent and anti-liberal manifestations but decidedly less tolerant of Christianity which, at the present time, is no threat to anyone. For a thorough discussion, see Why the Left Will Not Admit the Threat of Radical Islam.
Words matter because words stand for concepts--abstract ideas that join certain things and separate others. Your ideological enemy is your ideological enemy in part because he divides the world up differently from you. He works with different concepts, different classifications. Where you see the opposition of freedom vs. government force, he sees the opposition of "exploitation" vs. "equality." Where you see earning vs. freeloading, he sees "luck" vs. "compassion."
Even little, innocuous concepts are game-changers. Take "access." Is there some national, collective problem in the fact that some people don't have "access" to quality medical care? What if we rephrase the question to be: do some people have the right to force other people to pay for their medical care? Sounds a little different, doesn't it? I don't have "access" to your car, your home, and your bank account. That's a disgrace!
However one comes down on the health care issue one ought to understand that there is a serious underlying question here that ought to be out in the open and discussed: Is there a right to be provided by the government, and thus by taxpayers, with health care services?
For an unpacking of the issue, see A Right to Health Care?
All intellectually honest people ought to admit that it is wrong to obliterate this issue by linguistic hijacking and terminological fiat. But that is what 'liberals' do. Ergo, etc.
Recent Comments