What’s in a name?

A friend and reader, Mr. Dick Toomey, also has a blog sight called Fodder. I have previously posted some of Mr. Toomey’s posts with his permission. He has a unique way of looking at things.

He has graciously allowed me to post his most recent missive. I highly recommend that you read on. I consider myself (probably inappropriately) to be a wordsmith. The issue of the meaning of “liberal” versus “conservative,” purely as words, never crossed my mind in now well over 2000 posts. (By the by, most of the emphases below were added by me).

Roy Filly

It Needs A Name.

By, Dick Toomey

According to the revered Heritage Foundation, the modern American Conservative movement was born in 1953 with the publication of Russell Kirk’s masterwork — The Conservative Mind. Kirk deserves profound acclaim, as do many other legendary heroes of Conservatism — among them, Goldwater, Friedman, Buckley, Reagan, Gingrich — even media stalwarts like Limbaugh and Levin. Too bad all of that stunning brainpower doesn’t include the name of one mediocre marketer of average intellect. Too bad some competent people with common sense didn’t convene to create a compelling brand name that would coincide with compelling brand principles. But, typical of many “think-tank” scholars, Kirk and other stalwart authors ignored their audience. They planted the seeds of Conservatism all across fertile political fields; and in doing so, forever alienated the majority of voters under the age of 35 — those living and those yet to be conceived (in the Biblical sense). They failed to consider that millions of people would reject the word “conservative” — but not because they would reject Conservative beliefs. They reject the word — the word. They reject it simply because no self respecting millennial wants to be thought of as “conservative.” As that famous intellectual Gomer Pyle was so fond of saying, “Surprise, surprise!” Because who can blame them? Nobody should. “Conservative” is the wrong term for a political ideology that is potent, powerful and productive. If you think you’re a Conservative, take a simple test to prove it. List the known synonyms of “conservative” that you can find in any thesaurus or dictionary. Do it. Do it now. Ready? They are:

Bourgeois, Controlled, Conventional, Die-hard, Fearful, Firm, Fogeyish, Fuddy-duddy, Guarded, Hard Hat, Hidebound, Holding, Illiberal, In a Rut, Inflexible, Obstinate, Old Guard, Old Line, Orthodox, Prejudiced, Reactionary, Redneck, Right of Center, Right Winger, Sober, Stable, Traditional, Unchangeable, Uncreative, Un-Daring, Unimaginative, White Bread.

By contrast to these published definitions of “conservative,” you should also familiarize yourself with the “liberal” counterparts:

Advanced, Avante-Garde, Broad-minded, Enlightened, Flexible, Free, High-minded, Humanistic, Humanitarian, Intelligent, Interested, Left, Loose, Lenient, Libertarian, Magnanimous, Permissive, Rational, Reasonable, Receptive, Receiving, Reformist, Tolerant, Unbiased, Unbigoted, Unconventional, Understanding, Unorthodox, Unprejudiced.

These words are not perceptions. These words are published in the most respected anthologies. These words and definitions are taught, used and accepted in the best schools — grammar schools, high schools and colleges. Conservatives are “Right Wingers.” But Liberals are not “Left Wingers.” Liberals are “Understanding.” Conservatives are “Obstinate.” Conservatives are “reactionary.” Liberals are “rational.” With few exceptions, Conservative is synonymous with negativity, antagonism and deprecation. Liberal is synonymous with thoughtfulness, intelligence and enlightenment. These perceptions may be false but nothing can change them. Conservative gurus in academia and in media work tirelessly to reverse these wrong impressions in an effort to sway young voters — to believe that Conservatism is in their self interest and can indeed be “cool.” They will be successful — when Hell freezes over. At best, Conservatism is an anemic name for a muscular doctrine. Conservatism didn’t elect Trump. The true Conservative candidates lost. The self-avowed Conservative Inner Circle rejected Trump and still does, along with the GOP Beltway Boys. If the Democrat Party had placed in nomination an authentic American Centrist — someone other than their anointed serial criminal or whacko Socialist — Donald and Melania would  be living happily together in Manhattan, doing what billionaires do. Trump didn’t create a new brand, but he did create a new coalition — a coalition that doesn’t walk lock-step with the GOP or any other established party. The Outsider defeated the Establishment. But demographics are not on the side of the new coalition without attracting millennials in much greater numbers. The case has to be made and marketed. The window is open — temporarily. It needs a name.

About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What’s in a name?

  1. Pat says:

    Good name is Constitutionalist but its dictionary definition doesn’t have substantial latitude to include much of what most right leaning conservatives believe. A great term, generally misundertood and often used by the lamestream media with a snarl, is Neoconservative. Read Wikipedia for its origin and definition. Started by disinchanted liberals and subsequent supporters of Reagan (“Reagan Democrats”) and part of Bushs’ administrations (again, I’m no fan of the Bushes, especially Bush the Younger). I’m not one nor do I support some of the Neocon platforms but the dictionary definition is a lot nicer than their definitions of Conservative and more likely to attract millennials and younger voters (since that seemed to be the focus of Mr. Toomey’s article). Americanism is the best description od conservative values but how do you accurately define Americanism and not have the term hijacked by liberals to mean what they think “America” should stand for in these times?

  2. Lee O. Welter, MD says:

    Collectivists are not truly liberal, but appear to favor tyranny. However, their propaganda has been very effective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s