The Silliness of Slogans
People on Catholic blogs (in the US anyway) still insist on using terms like “liberal” and “conservative”, and using them in a vacuous sense. Here’s Forbes doing its best to define a latter-day “liberal”:
“Broadly, a “liberal’ subscribes to some or all of the following: (1) progressive income taxation; (2) universal health care of some kind; (3) opposition to the war in Iraq, (4) and a certain queasiness about the war on terror; (5) an instinctive preference for international diplomacy; (6) the right to gay marriage; (7) a woman’s right to an abortion; (8) environmentalism in some Kyoto Protocol-friendly form; (9) and a rejection of the McCain-Palin ticket.” [numbers mine]
So the Catholic Church would affirm (1)-(5) and (8), deny (6) and (7), and has no opinion on (9). What does that tell you? Nothing beyond the meaninglessness of these slogans.
Comments are closed.
I agree, “warmongering, bible-thumping scrooge” is more accurate. The Republican party has reduced itself to a lynch mob with, even by lynch mob standards, astoundingly low intelligence.
Them Obamas, I reckon, eat them fancy foods, they not good ‘mericans like me ‘n you, Billy Bob, good ‘mericans love ‘emselves their wonderbread. Aru…Arud..Arugulala ? Well, I’m sure that Ole Joe Stalin loved that devil’s weed, too. Us ordinary folk don’t need nothin’ fancy. Momma! Fry some more of that ice cream, will ya ? Look, Billy Bob, there goes this Wainwright character again. I hear he’s a gay. I reckon somebody’s gotta be left behind when the good lord comes back to take us away.
Whoever is moderating the comments for this thread:
Why on earth is Gerald’s comment left standing? How exactly does it promote charity and reasoned debate?
MM, I’m in general agreement, with one exception: #1. While the Church certainly doesn’t oppose a progressive income tax, I’m unaware of any document giving preference to it… did you have one in mind?
I concur with Mr. Denton; also, titles are easy for our culture (especially in the US) to digest and then used to dismiss peson, party, or a people. Social Justice teaching(s) should be the guide for ALL Catholics, when one succumbs to all the rubrics of a cetain political party then you’re becoming a “cafteria Catholic” and/or an “American Catholic.” To say that as a “faithful” “practicing” Catholic you are a “D” or an “R” is a part of life, to adhear to all of their tenents is not folowing in line with church teachings. Let’s review: (Thanks to Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno)
(1) Sanctity of human life and dignity of the person
(2) Call to family, community, and participation
(3) Rights and responsibilities
(4) Preferential Option for the poor and vulnerable
(5) Dignity of work and the rights of workers
(6) Solidarity
(7) Care for God’s creation
What does that tell you? Nothing beyond the meaninglessness of these slogans.
Alternatively, it tells you that the labels (not slogans) of “liberal” and “conservative, while mapping fairly well onto American politics, don’t map perfectly onto the Catholic Church. Nor is there any reason to expect that they should — I’d bet, without having studied the matter, that the Catholic Church’s positions weren’t fully consistent with the Tories or the Whigs in the 18th century either . . . but thatobviously doesn’t mean that the labels “Tory” or “Whig” were “meaningless” as applied to the world of politics at that time.
Merriam Webster defines slogan as “a brief attention-getting phrase used in advertising or promotion” which is exactly how many Americans use the term “liberal”. Tomothy Garton Ash has a nice op-ed in the NYT today dealing with the mis-use of this term in the US. His punchline: “Liberalism has become a pejorative term denoting — to put the matter a tad frivolously — some unholy marriage of big government and fornication.” How can this term map “fairly well” onto US politics without this being a total indictment of US politics?
Chris:
Interesting issue. Take John XXII in Mater et Magistra: ” In a system of taxation based on justice and equity it is fundamental that the burdens be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing.” That seems to me to be cose for progressive taxation based on the principles of justice and equity.
What SB said.
Well, if the “arguments” against the Obamas weren’t so close to the satire posted…Need I remind you of the great Arugula Campaign of 2008 ? My lil piece doesn’t even come close to the reality. Not to mention, what’s with the call for censorship ?
The Democrats certainly are quite an awful lot, by European and Canadian standards, when it comes to standing up for employees’ rights, and their abortion position is radical by comparison as well. Nonetheless, they got Republicans beat on almost every count FOF lists, if one looks just at today’s Republicans. In general, the more fervently “religious” someone is, the more likely he is for war and against social justice (other than the annual church bake sale). What is the Republican platform today ? War, hating gays and protecting Christmas. America has a government for and by business, in general, and even more so under Republicans. “Conservative” roughly means no employees’ rights, no rights for gays, support our troops killing anyone anywhere, and tax cuts for whatever money hasn’t been offshored yet. Socialism is both taboo (no one knows why) and common for corporations.
Democrats have some amazingly idiotic social policies based on usually “noble” intentions (again, a visit to Canada or Europe might help to see that government facility does not have to be a bad word), as opposed to Republicans’ “I don’t give a damn, cut my taxes”. Granted, the American system is so rigged by and for business, it’s hard to make inroads. Ironically, the most fervent Catholics dismiss Pope Benedict the most on issues apart from gay rights and abortion.
Good intentions cannot make up for disastrous results, but the nastiness common among right-wingers is a much less frequent guests. Who wants to spend an evening with Michelle Malkin. Talk about hell being other people.
“Liberal” in German is closer to libertarian here, with a pro-business aspect, parties tend to be very small. The German liberal party frequently formed coalitions with the conservatives. As far as “conservative” goes – Even right-wing rabble in Europe cannot aspire to the depths the GOP has sunken to. They’d still give you health insurance.
“Liberalism has become a pejorative term denoting — to put the matter a tad frivolously — some unholy marriage of big government and fornication.”
Sounds about right to me.
The word “liberal” is not a phrase, hence it’s not a “slogan.
Anyway, are you really trying to deny that there are huge numbers of people in America — including a good many Catholics, for that matter — who DO believe in numbers (1) through (9), even if you might murmur a slight voice of dissent from (6) and (7)?
I’m Catholic, and thus I make up the church just as much as any narrow minded bishop, and I fully support gay marriage. Shows how useless this post is I guess.
“The word “liberal” is not a phrase, hence it’s not a “slogan. ”
How many words does a phrase contain?
A slogan can be a “catchword.”
Whatever. Define “slogan” to mean a single word if you like, but the substance of the post is still wrong. “Liberal” isn’t a meaningless term in American politics. It’s a term that has a distinct history and pedigree that has resulted in its use today, and when people use the word “liberal” today, there usually isn’t much sincere confusion about who or what they mean.
To be sure, the word “liberal” arguably is misused if you just look at its etymological history (i.e., it’s used today to apply to politicians who don’t put a high priority on “liber” or liberty, except for a couple of very narrow realms), but lots of words are used today to mean things that are different from how those words were used hundreds of years ago . . . which is to say, so what?
The word has noty changed its meaning. It retains its meaning elsewhere in the world. It became a “slogan” because Reagan and his fawning acolyes used it in such a manner. We need to seize back the meaning.
Who’s this “we”? You do realize that you’ve spent the past year shilling for a political coalition out of which the vast majority of people believe in numbers (1) through (9) above, right?
So are you saying that Forbes is a Catholic Blog? I’m confused….
Folks should read Jim Kalb’s book The Tyranny of Liberalism. Classical-liberal libertarianism and modern welfare state managerial liberalism are not different things: they are a natural progression or development of the same thing.