You make a very good point. Labels can be used to manipulate. We HAVE to look at actions.
“You make a very good point. Labels can be used to manipulate. We HAVE to look at actions.”
Labels, to the extent they are used in the essential purpose of language, which is to designate and explain what we mean, are necessary.
The prior use of “reasonable” is entirely too vague to serve that purchase.
Labels are a necessary evil. For example, communication would be so much easier if we were all perfect telepaths. No words at all would be necessary. It’s not that way. We use words as shorthand, as containers we can use to ship ideas between each other. Labels, especially political labels, are like large freighters that contain many containers, and they are a useful tool for rapid and efficient exchange of large quantities of ideas.
The problem is that, unlike ships at sea, it is way too easy to slip into multiple uses for the same label. Nobody “owns” the label so everyone uses it to their own purposes and according to their own level of understanding.
Bush equating the movement to Bauer’s presidential run is interesting in this respect. He may have used an eclectic definition of conservative that more closely resembled the “Christian theocracy” variant, for which a Bauer presidency might represent the camel’s nose under the tent. This is significantly different from a Judeo-Christian natural law conservatism, which appeals to a shared, universal sense of right and wrong to set public policy. Whereas a theocracy, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, relies directly on claims of divine revelation. The Christian position most like this is called theonomy, and it is a movement, but it is so tiny and so fractured it has no real presence on the American political stage. So in that sense, if that’s what he meant by conservative, he was right.
However, Bush actually was conservative in some respects, using the term in a natural law sense. He did do some things that tended to the benefit of conservative values. I am thinking of pro-life, pro free enterprise, and pro strong defense categories. By contrast, on issues of national sovereignty, free speech, and big government, he was definitely a disappointment.
One final thought. With conservatism you always have to ask, what, exactly, is being conserved? The tradition of a certain divine revelation? The legal, philosophical, and religious values that informed the natural law perspective of the Founders and their Constitution? Or some disorganized patchwork quilt of ideas that borrows randomly from a variety of traditions and beliefs? With most politicians it seems to be the last of those three options. This is why public policy is in such disarray. It is a reflection of our own confused thinking over what’s really in that word. That’s why I am trying to make a practice of using the term “Principled Conservative.” It encourages the listener to ask, “What foundational principles govern your policy outcomes?” And that is the question we need to be asking, of our politicians, our political parties, and ourselves.