Read on Twitter
[Thread] How should we assess the conceptual rigidity of our political labels? I'm talking labels like "conservative," "Marxist," "progressive," etc.
On one side is the idea that these labels are anchored to something semantically solid:
like history (“Whig” invoking an antiroyalist historical emphasis on parliamentary/congressional supremacy)
a document (“Constitutionalist”)
a regional sensibility (“Dixiecrat”).
like history (“Whig” invoking an antiroyalist historical emphasis on parliamentary/congressional supremacy) a document (“Constitutionalist”) a regional sensibility (“Dixiecrat”).
On the other is the idea that the labels are more inherently fluid, and can be meaningfully adapted and even reconfigured, so long as a sufficient number of people within the movement adopt it for themselves.
Consider the post-2016 “conservatives.”
Consider the post-2016 “conservatives.”
In recent years, parties have sorted ideologically, so that labels like "conservative" and "liberal" almost perfectly layer, without remainder, onto their corresponding political parties.
So take the Republican Party, for instance.
So take the Republican Party, for instance.
The GOP is continuous, legally and politically, with the entity bearing that name prior to 2016.
McConnell didn’t go from one party (2015) to another (2017)—not in a legal or institutional sense.
But ideologically? There are big differences in the pre- and post-2016 iterations.
McConnell didn’t go from one party (2015) to another (2017)—not in a legal or institutional sense.
But ideologically? There are big differences in the pre- and post-2016 iterations.
A reasonable view is that (a) real world participants determine political symbols, but that (b) the array of symbols in our political culture (Constitution, Marx, etc.) aren't fully capturable by a movement simply generating enough numbers to ward off significant contestation.
So, with some exceptions, it makes sense to call Trump supporters “conservatives” because they all (or mostly all) call themselves that, and their opponents call them that.
This is what I mean by “real world participants” get to “determine political symbols.”
This is what I mean by “real world participants” get to “determine political symbols.”
But it starts to make less sense when we've got a label that has one of those more solid conceptual anchors I mentioned earlier.
Take, for example, the idea of a "constitutionalist" or "Marxist."
Take, for example, the idea of a "constitutionalist" or "Marxist."
Suppose every Marxist suddenly vanished and a huge group styled themselves the true heirs of Marx, despite being arch-capitalists. It wouldn’t matter if they called themselves Marxists, and if their rivals went along—they simply wouldn’t be Marxists. And I wouldn’t call them that
Some of these symbols, the elements of our political culture, seem to us more inherently fluid—e.g., the concept “Republican."
A “Republican” in 1860 and a “Republican” in 2016 are, pace the pretentions of clowns like @DineshDSouza, conceptually worlds apart.
A “Republican” in 1860 and a “Republican” in 2016 are, pace the pretentions of clowns like @DineshDSouza, conceptually worlds apart.
But something like “Constitution” is semantically anchored in a historical document that less easily allows capture or conceptual flexibility.
For many, “conservative” is closer to this, closer to being rigid this way, than it is to “Republican,” which admits of more elasticity.
For many, “conservative” is closer to this, closer to being rigid this way, than it is to “Republican,” which admits of more elasticity.
In cases where my disagreement with a label and its adopters is less pronounced than in the capitalist/Marxist analogy—say, for example, in the case of “Constitutional Conservatives,” who somewhat act in accordance with the Constitution but not completely, and not all the time …
… I think I’d treat their adoption of that name in the following way: I’d use the label when writing about them, or when referring to them, but I’d push back on the label in cases where I was trying to more fully describe them, or when doing a deeper profile of their views.
This @olivertraldi article from a few years back is worth returning to. https://arcdigital.media/what-being-a-liberal-used-to-mean-c84a11b3aae?source=friends_link&sk=a4ee5637b067007bb6ce95836857bafe
