The ancient Egyptians had a saying that went, “whosoever has your name has power over you.” Initially this may seem a strange concept, until we consider the power of stereotypes to inculcate prejudices against certain groups, whether religious, political, or racial. In the political sphere there is one name that seems to be on everyone’s lips: liberal.
Classical liberalism was a label applied to a set of thinkers in the 18th century (John Locke, Adam Smith) who shared common ideas about how private property, free trade, and small government could lead to greater happiness and material wealth for the individual and society. Anyone who was a conservative was allied with the aristocracy and did not believe in the changes proposed by liberal thinkers. Fast-forward to the 20th century, and the meaning has changed. A conservative believes in the power of privatization and free trade, while a liberal tends to look to government to play a positive role in people’s lives through increased social programs.
The word “liberal” is now a weapon, a catch-all term used by conservatives to not only defame their political opponents, but to also make voters unnecessarily fearful and ignorant. This dialogue has permeated both the Canadian and American political scenes, and has been cleverly used to make people fearful of anything “liberal.”
Through television and talk radio, we have received the false notion of the “tax and spend” liberal who has no control over government spending. We also have the idea of a “liberal media” that is biased and won’t tell both sides of the story. This has been the concerted effort of commentators like Bill O’ Reilly and Glen Beck in the United States and Mark Steyn in Canada.
Both these stereotypes do not hold up when subjected to closer scrutiny. In the United States in the 1980s, then president Ronald Reagan and his famous “Reganomics” reduced taxes for the upper bracket of income earners from 70 per cent to 28 per cent, increased taxes on social services, and increased defence spending. The exorbitant defence spending led to such high borrowing that the federal deficit increased from $700 billion to $3 trillion. The U.S. went from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation. By contrast, Bill Clinton’s tenure in office was marked by balanced budgets through a smart “pay as you go” clause, where with each new program introduced came a corresponding tax or a cut service. The $11-million surplus he left George W. Bush was destroyed quickly by two deep tax cuts, two foreign wars, an expansion of Medicare, and the removal of “pay as you go,” which led to the federal deficit ballooning to $8 trillion.
In Canada, when Paul Martin was Finance Minister under Jean Chrétien, Parliament continually posted balanced budgets. Under Jim Flaherty, we now have a $50-billion deficit that is once again the result of tax cuts and increased spending.
Distortion of the facts is not beyond the purview of right wing media outlets that continually use the “liberal” tag as a means to cast doubt on any newspaper, news channel, or news site that might give an unfavourable rendering of the conservative ideology.
The next time you hear “liberal” applied to a politician, political commentator, or news outlet, consider the source of the label and the above facts. You may finally realize how distorted perceptions can be become with a single name.
