Pubdate: Wed, 02 May 2001
Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web)
Copyright: 2001 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/655
Section: Random Fire
Author: Joel Miller
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

WHAT'S IN A POLITICAL NAME?

What does a person call himself these days?

I used to call myself a conservative. But whenever I say that we ought to 
legalize crack cocaine, some conservatives feel they'd be justified in 
introducing my hindquarters to the business end of the Second Amendment.

Besides, as I see it, conservatives don't actually stand for much these 
days. Or rather, I should say, they do; conservatives stand today for 
whatever liberals stood for 50 years ago. Don't believe me? Fifty years ago 
conservatives hated Social Security. Now they defend it as if it were in 
the Constitution right there along with motherhood, apple pie and tax 
loopholes.

Then I decided to call myself libertarian. But most of my friends instantly 
assumed that my secret motivation was to actually start smoking the crack 
cocaine I so wanted to legalize. Too many people think of libertarian like 
libertine -- so I should start having indiscriminate sex, driving too fast, 
doing dope and listening to Howard Stern. No thanks.

Drugs should be legalized because the drug war is more dangerous to society 
than all the coke fiends in the history of the world. And if outlawing 
plants actually worked, I can think of far more annoying weeds to take care 
of first -- crabgrass, for starters. Besides, what right is it of mine to 
control what my neighbor wants to smoke, snort, swallow, ingest or inject?

Also, as libertarian David Boaz admits, the word is "a clunky neologism 
with too many syllables. It probably wouldn't be anyone's first choice."

Briefly, very briefly, I thought about tagging myself with the liberal 
label. Trouble there was that I was full of self-loathing within minutes 
and had to give it up for the sake of my mental health.

To be honest, in fact, I'm not even sure that liberals should call 
themselves liberal any longer. The word took enough of a beating during the 
Carter years, struggled through Reagan, got a leg up with Bush Sr., but 
now, after suffering eight years of Clinton, looks as if it'll die a 
painful and lingering death.

Like snakes eating their own tails, people who call themselves liberals are 
actively helping to destroy whatever value the word still has. Folks like 
California Gov. Gray Davis are, for instance, currently doing their level 
best to see that the term is listed in Roget's Thesaurus next to "political 
idiocy."

There's always classical liberal, which acts as a pretty good alternative 
to libertarian. Historically, like libertarians, classical liberals believe 
in open markets and limited government. But most people don't know anything 
about history any longer and think that a classical liberal is Ted Kennedy 
abusing Brahms instead of booze.

Giving up on that front, I thought that progressive might work. After all, 
I'm hip. I like things to keep moving forward. I'm all about progress. But 
then I realized that most people who call themselves progressive are pretty 
regressive in terms of what they want to do. They're basically just 
Bolsheviks on a bad diet.

Their leaders are guys like Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader, and if you've 
followed these guys, you know what a winning team they are: a linguist who 
pontificates about economics and a consumer advocate too scared to ride in 
a mid-engine automobile. Oy vey!

Other words are also troublesome. Take moderate. What's that supposed to 
mean? The major parties and the various ideologies stuffed inside their big 
tents are already tepid enough. Tell me honestly, can you get any more 
moderate than Orrin Hatch? Insipid is the next step, not moderate.

People have recommended I call myself a constitutionalist, which would be 
fine, except Supreme Court Justice David Souter no doubt considers himself 
a constitutionalist, too -- and you know what a yutz he is.

Independent? Please. Calling yourself an independent is just not calling 
yourself something else; it's nothing by itself. Sure there's a lot of 
almost laudable self-righteousness attached to not being a liberal, to not 
being a conservative. But what are you? Like Colombia's antigovernment 
protesters during the 1960s, they're Nadaistas -- "Nothingists."

But I'm a Somethingist, at least as far as I can tell. In this 
greased-label-catching contest of modern-day politics, I just can't tell 
what I'm supposed to be called. So, I'm going to put it to you, the reader.

What do you call a guy who believes the government shouldn't:

tell us how to educate or raise our children; confiscate horrendous amounts 
of our money; regulate what we stick in everything from our gas tanks to 
our mouths; tell us who to hire and what our businesses can and can't do; 
decide how we should medicate ourselves; operate agencies that abuse people 
for how they decide to medicate themselves; operate bureaucracies that 
usurp the role of private institutions; subsidize both activities and 
companies that shouldn't exist by virtue of their lack of market value; and 
decide to prosecute businesses that exist "too well" in the marketplace 
(hint: think Microsoft)? In other words, what do you call a guy who 
believes the government shouldn't stick its nose into every corner of our 
existence, nitpick like an uppity relative and boss us around like a cross 
between a drill sergeant and school principal?

But at the same time also:

considers the traditional cultural values of Christendom to be superior to 
pagan culture; thinks that living the good life has more to do with having 
a wife, raising a family and making a stand than making a fortune; is 
convicted that if people read the Ten Commandments with half the enthusiasm 
with which they scroll through John Grisham's latest, American society 
would be far better off; maintains that conservatives, by focusing on 
life's narrow field of politics, ceded the rest of culture to social 
reactionaries; and thinks that forcing his views on others, however noble 
they may be, is not the way to see others accept these ideas for their own 
but, rather, thinks persuasion and building personal rapport with those who 
disagree is a far better method of conversion? Obviously, the conservatives 
usually respond by saying that the government should tell us what we can 
consume, vis-a-vis dope, and think that grabbing my money is fine so long 
as it goes to fund Republican programs. And they hate it when I insist that 
the cultural brain rot of the 1960s is basically their fault (or, more 
precisely, the fault of fundamentalist Christian conservatives who 
retreated from the culture in the 19th and 20th centuries).

At the same time, the liberals usually say I'm too religious, snicker a bit 
and then promptly disagree with most everything else. Of course the 
government should tell you what to do with your life, your property, your 
freedom. After all, government knows best.

Likewise, the libertarians usually say I'm too religious, snicker a bit and 
then promptly agree with most everything else. And then go back to 
snickering about me being too religious.

Moving from the fringe to the rigor mortis-stricken dead center, the 
progressives think I'm an oppressor of the world's victims because I don't 
agree with them that importing shoes made in Malaysia is the moral 
equivalent of the Holocaust. The independents don't know what they think 
about me because most of them don't know what they think about anything. 
Meanwhile, no surprise here, the moderates say I'm an extremist -- never 
mind that some of these same folks think Bob Dole is also a radical.

So, dear reader, got your label gun ready? I've got an archive going back 
to April '99 if you need a little more info before choosing. But as soon 
you're ready, shoot me a name -- other than one containing four-letters, 
please. Above all, I'm sensitive.

Joel Miller is the commentary editor of WorldNetDaily. His publishing 
company, MenschWerks,recently published "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.
- ---
MAP posted-by: GD