Liberty. Freedom. Justice. Equality. Rights. Privilege. Fairness.<\/p>\n
(This list could continue to include hundreds of words and thousand of phrases.)<\/p>\n
Conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians\u2026 each group (and subgroup) has a different understanding of what these and other basic political terms mean. As a result, we talk past each other, believing we\u2019re discussing the same concepts from the same perspectives when really there\u2019s little to no shared understanding between the lexicons of ideologies.<\/p>\n
I define a \u201cright\u201d as something inherently independent of the actions of other people. As a result, I struggle with notions of a \u201cright\u201d to education or healthcare because those both require that someone else be persuaded (or required) to provide the underlying service. What if nobody wants to be a teacher, nurse, or doctor? Do we force people in professions? In my worldview, these are privileges of living within a community. We use community resources to provide for some services, persuading other community members to pursue the necessary professions.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, other people view rights from the notion of \u201cpositive rights\u201d \u2014 things ensured by government. There is a \u201cright\u201d to quite a lot of things I wouldn\u2019t consider government\u2019s responsibility. As a result, discussing rights leads to a conflict of not mere political theory, but a basic conflict between differing languages.<\/p>\n
Language is instantaneous. When I consider \u201crights\u201d I don\u2019t run through the 16 definitions appearing in my Oxford Dictionary of American English. Beyond the core context clues in a phrase (right turn, right answer, doing the right thing), we process language in milliseconds. To change my internal lookup tables would require years, because that dictionary is the result of 50 years of associations. The best I can do is pause before responding to another definition of \u201crights\u201d that might not be the one I prioritize.<\/p>\n
As someone with a doctorate in rhetoric, you\u2019d imagine I would know what words mean, but what I really know is that words mean different things to different people<\/strong>.<\/p>\n I want freedom from interference in my life, and the freedom to make my own choices. The entire \u201cnegative liberty\u201d model bothers me rhetorically, since I consider limits on government a path toward the \u201cfreedom to\u2026\u201d think and act according to my own needs and desires. (We need better labels than positive and negative when someone in the \u201cnegative\u201d group views his or her approach as a positive outcome.)<\/p>\n If we cannot agree on freedom, maybe there\u2019s some hope we could agree on liberty as word. Probably not, though.<\/p>\n Liberty brings to mind \u201cto be liberated from\u201d some condition. Once again, we end up with different views of liberty and different framing of conversations. To a conservative or libertarian, to be liberated meant to also be someone alone. There\u2019s an existential angst lurking behind liberty. Okay, you\u2019ve been liberated. Now what will you choose to do?<\/p>\n The world \u201cliberal\u201d to me has the European connotation, not the American understanding of liberalism. I consider \u201cliberalization\u201d of policy to be defined by less regulation and less direct involvement of government in my life.<\/p>\n If we process the world using the same words for two or more vastly differently frames of interpretation, how do we find common ground on serious issues?<\/p>\n It is likely that our vastly different dictionaries demonstrate why we might not find ways to collaborate and solve problems. We really don\u2019t speak the same language, only the same words.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Liberty. Freedom. Justice. Equality. Rights. Privilege. Fairness. (This list could continue to include hundreds of words and thousand of phrases.) Conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians\u2026 each…<\/p>\n