The morning Op/Ed page is democracy at work — a forum for exchanging ideas and a reflection of our values. But it can just as well reveal the naughty bits of our particular capitalist democracy, with its tendency toward partisan bluster and mindless cant.

If you read The Boston Globe Op/Ed page every day, you might assume that there are only two possible political perspectives: liberal and conservative. But you might start to wonder what, exactly, these terms mean. If “conservatism” means fiscal responsibility and “getting government off our backs,” you have to wonder whether, for example, President Bush’s policies really meet that definition.

Whatever accepted definitions the “conservative” and “liberal” labels once had are breaking down. Young people, especially, are shedding traditional party and “camp” affiliations. Ask a college student whether she’s a republican or a democrat, and you’re not likely to get a straight answer — half of college students describe themselves as “unaffiliated,” and less than a third describe their views as “moderate.”  

If young people are less inclined to stay inside these two particularly constrictive boxes, our political language is sadly trending in the opposite direction (maybe that helps explain declining student engagement in politics). While our marketplace of ideas slides into dogmatic, partisan silliness, opinions that can’t fit neatly on a bumper sticker become irrelevant.

Let the inane, breathless ranting typical of Sean Hannity or Michael Moore trickle down to us ordinary citizens, and our ability to reason through complex issues — like gay marriage or the Iraq War — trickles down with it. When you see your political landscape as being dominated by two fundamentally opposed, warring camps, it is easier to rally support for your side by appealing to emotion than by appealing to reason. If you’ve already taken sides, it makes no sense to ask why you’re fighting. You just put your head down and fight.

Seeing the world in this profoundly uncivilized way allows Republican Party spokesmodel Ann Coulter, for example, to write:

[T]he left’s anti—Americanism is intrinsic to their entire worldview. Liberals promote the rights of Islamic fanatics for the same reason they promote the rights of adulterers, pornographers, abortionists, criminals, and Communists. They instinctively root for anarchy and against civilization.

From Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum,  2003).

  
To a sympathetic reader, Coulter gives emotional rant the appearance of logic by defining “America” as everything that is good and agreeable to me and “the left,” “liberals” or “democrats” (she uses the terms interchangeably) as everything that is bad and disagreeable to me.  When her terms are so defined, the above statement is perfectly logical. Coulter’s aim, though, is not to lead the reader toward knowledge or understanding or reason, but into a comfy tautological cul-de-sac, where, by definition, she is always right.

It’s this kind of intentional definitional confusion that allows Globe reader Bruce Cantwell to write, in a letter to the editor:

Liberalism has nothing to do with freedom. If I own a piece of land and want to build on it, who blocks my effort? If I want to own a gun, who stops me? If I want to smoke in a bar, who stops me? Who opposes freedom in all areas of trade and commerce? (The Boston Globe, Feb. 9, 2004).

  
In case it’s not clear, Mr. Cantwell means to suggest that “liberals” are the enemies of freedom. But in response, one might ask, as Globe  reader Dan Feinberg did the next day:

What if I own a home and I want to freely enjoy my neighborhood without commercial encroachment? What if I want to freely walk down the street without being threatened by a “sporting” handgun? What if I want to work or play in a bar free from toxic smoke? What if I want to eat fish free from the mercury taint that even a conservative-led FDA and EPA admit is dangerous and comes mostly from polluting coal “commerce?” (The Boston Globe, Feb. 10, 2004).

Are “conservatives” and “liberals” both enemies of freedom? Provided they can agree on a bar, maybe Bruce and Dan will get together and resolve the apparent paradox over a beer. If they do, they might ask a more productive question: Why talk about “liberals” and “conservatives” and their relation to “freedom” if we won’t even define our terms?

When we banish these labels to the proverbial dustbin, it gets harder to point out one side’s hypocrisies and the other’s ironies. Without the ability to level the opponent to one common denominator or another, Op/Ed sophistry becomes almost impossible. Just try answering Bruce or Dan’s questions without them. And when we refuse to use misleading generalizations, we might have to get down to the patriotic work of a well-functioning democratic citizenry: earnest, candid dialogue — on the issues.

henrypb