Cary Brunswick

By Cary Brunswick
The Daily Star

ONEONTA, N.Y.

So, now we're going to have one of those leftist, liberal, socialist presidents. At least those are a few of the adjectives used by many commentators to describe Barack Obama, especially before the election Nov. 4.
The trouble is we use a lot of words to describe people and things that may make it easier for us to categorize them, but the words do not contribute to a common understanding of what is really happening.
We use the words liberal and conservative all the time in American discourse to pigeonhole politicians, policies or just a common point of view. We hear them spouted by television news commentators, news writers and regular joes at the diner. And it's as if we all understood exactly what was being meant by the words.
But if you pulled 10 people in off the street and asked them what ``liberal'' meant, you likely would get six or seven different answers. They would range from ``Democrat,'' ``big government'' and ``big taxers and spenders'' politically, to environmentalist and pro-choice.
Traditionally, a liberal favored individual freedom and democracy, and a free market to allow unfettered growth. Conservatives opposed such notions because they threatened the wealthy ruling classes.
Those definitions of the 19th century had been topsy-turvied by the 21st century. Along the way, however, conservatives became known as the champions of free individuals and markets, while liberals were associated with government extending its reach into people's lives through social programs and regulation of business.
But defining ``freedom'' for conservatives raises another set of issues. Let's just say that their idea of freedom meant you were free within strict boundaries but also free to starve in the streets. Big business was free to turn individuals into consumers and rape the environment.
The Bush administration, supposedly conservative Republican, has increased the national debt, started a war (an action primarily reserved for Democrats in the last century) and now is bailing out or nationalizing parts of the financial industry.
Sounds ``liberal,'' doesn't it?
Some would cloud the matter even further by saying a liberal was a leftist and a conservative was right-wing, which are other words of dubious meaning used all-too-frequently to describe a politics, a leader or a government.
Even the news service The Associated Press throws the term leftist around in news stories without ever defining it. It's as if people were supposed to know already what the writer means.
For example, ``Voters on Saturday (in New Zealand) elected a wealthy former currency market trader to lead them through the global financial meltdown, handing long-serving left-wing Prime Minister Helen Clark a crushing defeat.''
Why was she called left-wing? She favored action to slow global warming and rights for indigenous people.
And political leaders also do not hesitate to toss the words around.
Before the defeat of the first financial bailout package in September, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bailout was necessary because of Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets.
OK, that smacks of the traditional view of pro-business conservatives versus the view that government needs to regulate and protect the people from the greed of big business.
Who knows for sure?
What does seem clear in modern times, however, is that ``big government'' and ``big business'' are facts of life, whether liberals, conservatives, leftists or rightists are in charge.
And as we found in the recent presidential campaigns, even the traditional view that liberals are for change and conservatives are for the status quo is obsolete. Both candidates made ``change'' a watchword of their campaigns, even the more "conservative" McCain.
Nowadays, people realize change is always happening, and most people will embrace it because there's usually something in their lives, society or the economy that needs to be improved.
Since it is so hard to nail down exactly what we're talking about when we say ``liberal'' or ``conservative,'' ``left-wing'' or ``right-wing,'' perhaps we should take the fascist action of banning the words from our lexicon.
Or, perhaps, acting like good socialists, we should appoint a committee to come up with 21st-century meanings that make sense and then force people to use them for the good of society.
Without resorting to such extremes, it would be a good idea to voluntarily go through a week or a month or more without writing or uttering those words. When you feel the need to say liberal or conservative, choose another word that's more specific, more meaningful and less ideological.
After all, I've been called some of those names as a result of this column, and I'm still not sure why I qualify for them.
___
Cary Brunswick can be reached at cary@thedailystar.com.