What do 'damn' and 'liberal' have in common anyway?

By Emilie Holmes

November 20, 2004 | I first heard that the word "liberal" was a so-called bad word in 10th grade. My AP European history teacher was talking about Locke, Jefferson and other philosophers -- and their "liberal" ideas. He wrapped the class up that day by saying something like, "Liberal used to be a good and neutral word. ... It's now the equivalent of a swear word."

He gave no reasoning behind his determination, just the impression that the general population thought this way. I was relatively political by that first year of high school, but hadn't quite figured out what "damn" and "liberal" had in common, other than being words in the English language.

And still, no one has given me an answer. Since then, I've heard "conservative" be used in the same discriminatory tone, just as "Democrat" and "Republican" are. The terms are rarely accompanied by a reason as to why they're being said in such a negative and bitter way.

Utah, as a whole, as taken on "liberal" as its cherished hate word. If the average Joe in West Valley City starts talking about a liberal person, 90 percent of the time, you wouldn't want to be that person. You'll probably never hear why you're so terrible, but, guaranteed, it won't be a pleasant conversation.

Maybe you've heard someone, under their breath, say, "he's just a liberal," or "it's just another conservative," to disregard what that person is saying? It's a lot easier than saying "that person believes in social welfare in a way that I think would undermine our capitalistic society," or "because he stands up for the Second Amendment so radically, I think more people will be hurt." It's a lot easier, but it's too simple and too polarizing.

This is a problem that has plagued politics for some time now, at least as long as I've been alive. It seems that every year, politics on each side of the spectrum has become more and more extreme, with the bad becoming worse and the good becoming better. Yet, no one bothers to explain why these sides are "good" or "bad," just expects the listener to understand.

This is something that needs to be changed in conversation, in letters to the editor, in people's very thought processes. In Utah, "liberal" is flung out like a dirty sock with no backing as to why. "Conservative" is almost a holy word, and yet, with it too, no reason is given as it its holiness. I'm sure in other areas of the country the opposite takes place. Throwing any type of stereotypical or labeling word out there is not going to help any situation. By labeling someone, the person doing the labeling is just dumbing down those listening by not bothering to explain why the label is bad or, even better, what that "liberal" or "conservative" is saying is so worthy of disregard.

If people would just take the time to explain why they are referring to a specific ideology or group of people as good or bad, it would alleviate a lot of trouble. Maybe, if people took the time to discover why they were portraying some of these words in a positive or negative light, they would realize that what they've been saying all along hasn't been completely accurate.

NW
MS