I recently filled out a survey
from an environmental group but got stumped by the question about
my political affiliation. The right of the scale was labeled
“conservative” and the left side was
‘‘radical.’’
I bristled. Compare
the two words: Conservative has a pleasant root, conserve, as in
not squandering money or resources. Radical evokes bomb-throwing
Russian anarchists. If we must categorize people,
“left” or “right” are far less pejorative.
I find it difficult to categorize myself as conservative
or, heaven forbid, “liberal.” If the current
administration — which quickly converted a large surplus into a
larger debt, wants to open up much of the West to extract
hydrocarbons and favors pre–emptive war — is considered
conservative, then surely I must be a liberal. Further, I believe
in helping Americans who are poor, lack a voice, and can’t
afford basic health care, housing or higher education. Indeed,
I’m surprised the word liberal is considered suspect, since
President Bush used a common root, when he first proposed
“liberating” Iraq.
True, liberals often favor
“onerous” regulation, but I’m hard-pressed to
think of an industry that has effectively regulated itself.
Remember Enron? Have you been reading about corporations backdating
lucrative options for already highly paid executives?
But
I’m conservative, too, for I feel wise use of our natural
resources is patriotic. I am disturbed that too much debate on
energy centers on finding new sources, rather than using effective
conservation measures. As a Naval officer, I visited Corregidor and
the American cemetery in Manila and thought, “We have a right
to be here. We paid for it in blood.” That’s a
conservative view.
I am at odds with liberals on
immigration, for I believe our future is in jeopardy if we fail to
control our borders. We have one of the highest birth rates in the
industrialized world, and we will not keep wilderness for future
generations if our growth remains poorly checked. I am both liberal
and conservative, and I see too much co-opting and frank misuse of
these labels. If I must be categorized, let it be for the habit of
using words properly.
I have no issue with same-sex
marriage, since I think sexual preference is hard-wired, not a
matter of choice. But as “the child born on the Sabbath
day,” I have long resented the changed meaning of the
descriptive word “gay.” We’re told about
Intelligent Design, rather than God made it, because the latter
hasn’t a prayer (sorry!) of getting approved by most school
boards. The “Clear Skies” and “Healthy
Forest” initiatives were neither. As a former practicing
neurologist who treated hundreds of comatose patients, I resented
those who tried to place the label minimally conscious state on
Terri Schiavo, when persistent vegetative state was the proper
term, borne out by the autopsy.
We say Right to Life,
rather than Right to be Born, even though many are more concerned
about intrauterine life than postpartum poverty. The No Child Left
Behind law leads to poorly performing schools losing federal money,
certainly a curious way of helping schools reform. A disturbingly
large number of Americans refer to the Iraq conflict as the
“War on Terror,” true only if one considers that our
invasion unleashed more of that terror. A developer who builds on
“raw” land sounds benign, unless you are concerned
about sprawl.
That brings me back to the word
“radical” in the environmental group’s survey.
Perhaps the surveyor was around back in the ‘60s, when
left-wing radicals were prominent. But radical merely means taking
an extreme position. There are radical environmentalists, such as
the Vail and Phoenix arsonists, but attacking those who oppose our
involvement in Iraq as radicals marginalizes just about anyone who
thinks this country is going in the wrong direction.
Next
time you listen to the news or are in a conversation, notice the
use of catchphrases to over-simplify complex people and issues. We
need to carefully analyze not only what’s being said but also
how it’s expressed. That takes effort, time and
critical-thinking skills. Those who wish to convince us of their
opinion hope we won’t make the first, don’t have the
second and won’t apply the third.
Is it a radical
idea to hope we will change?
Michael S. Smith
is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of
High Country News (hcn.org). He writes in
Tucson, Arizona.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
