"It was a nice balance, liberals and conservatives were like the Yin and the Yang, complementing each other and resisting excesses by one or the other. / Of course, as Conservatives changed Liberals have as well, and neither for the better. In fact the liberal has gone out of liberals ... Neither party is recognizable if compared to 1960... [etc. etc.]"
Could we first try to distill our labels by focusing on the words themselves? Everywhere (obviously well beyond this essay, and for many decades), we get lost in the weeds, but I don't think it's rocket science.
-- Liberal and Conservative are both, literally, terms of time relativism that should not have any permanence with policy.
-- In America, Democratic and Republican are both de facto shells for 150-200 years. Each uses an ostensibly necessary American characteristic, but each has been used for the names of our now permanent-duopoly parties for all kinds of reasons.
We know quite well that all four of them continually change connotations and actual policy and behavior so that it all now looks FUBAR.
-- Instead, I'd say we need to get back to use of consistent Left and Right, use the other four terms as temporary overlays, and keep serious and clear about it.
"What," you may say, "they're just as screwed up as the others, or worse!" In practice, yes. At root, no, and for quite a long time. Right has (while waxing and waning) been about individual excellence and freedom, while Left has (while waxing and waning) been about social/cooperative excellence and fairness. Iteratively, over time, each also reacts to the excesses of the other. The reason is that these are *both* well-grounded, complementary needs of humans in a polity, and collectively, we change prioritization of one over the other at different times. That's why they exist in perpetuity. We must stop getting distracted by all the propaganda, pro and con and irrelevant, that our dear "leaders" constantly fling at us, not to mention the unavoidable evolution of the politics of populations.
Let's find a way to ground our language here and dismantle this political tower of Babel. Our history is confusing, and well arguably useless, even destructive, as a forward guide.
"It was a nice balance, liberals and conservatives were like the Yin and the Yang, complementing each other and resisting excesses by one or the other. / Of course, as Conservatives changed Liberals have as well, and neither for the better. In fact the liberal has gone out of liberals ... Neither party is recognizable if compared to 1960... [etc. etc.]"
Could we first try to distill our labels by focusing on the words themselves? Everywhere (obviously well beyond this essay, and for many decades), we get lost in the weeds, but I don't think it's rocket science.
-- Liberal and Conservative are both, literally, terms of time relativism that should not have any permanence with policy.
-- In America, Democratic and Republican are both de facto shells for 150-200 years. Each uses an ostensibly necessary American characteristic, but each has been used for the names of our now permanent-duopoly parties for all kinds of reasons.
We know quite well that all four of them continually change connotations and actual policy and behavior so that it all now looks FUBAR.
-- Instead, I'd say we need to get back to use of consistent Left and Right, use the other four terms as temporary overlays, and keep serious and clear about it.
"What," you may say, "they're just as screwed up as the others, or worse!" In practice, yes. At root, no, and for quite a long time. Right has (while waxing and waning) been about individual excellence and freedom, while Left has (while waxing and waning) been about social/cooperative excellence and fairness. Iteratively, over time, each also reacts to the excesses of the other. The reason is that these are *both* well-grounded, complementary needs of humans in a polity, and collectively, we change prioritization of one over the other at different times. That's why they exist in perpetuity. We must stop getting distracted by all the propaganda, pro and con and irrelevant, that our dear "leaders" constantly fling at us, not to mention the unavoidable evolution of the politics of populations.
Let's find a way to ground our language here and dismantle this political tower of Babel. Our history is confusing, and well arguably useless, even destructive, as a forward guide.
I agree