Defining Debate Down – How Language Keeps Us Confined

Language plays a far greater role then just communication. It defines how we think. The reason you can’t remember when you were six months old is not because your brain wasn’t recording events. It’s because you had yet to develop the intellectual framework from which to retrieve the memories of those events.

That intellectual framework is known as representation – how we convert our perceptions of the the outside world into concepts and ideas in our minds. Language is the higher development of representation – when the big round thing becomes a “ball”.

Likewise, our representations of political observations not only affect our ability to communicate, but they affect how we make sense of those observations.

Left, Right, and Center

The language of politics has been severely dumbed down by the duality of left vs right and their tripartite accomplice, the center.

These dim representations as a spectrum of political thought, and their respective correlation to specific philosophy and policy positions, shortchanges  not only debate, but our ability to even conceive of the real landscape of complex issues facing our world.

When one characterizes a candidate for public office as a centrist, for example, what does that actually mean? And can such a characterization have any value to the assessment of the pros and cons of their candidacy for office?

I think the answer is clearly no. The political landscape – which is just a representation of our political world using a geographical metaphor – is immensely complex. We all develop our own conceptions of it in relation to specific issues and their application to an overarching philosophy.

By relying on the LeftRightCenter framework to define this landscape, critical information is omitted. Worse, misinformation is introduced.

For example, where does Howard Dean fit into the LRC spectrum? I doubt any self-declared “leftist” in Vermont would claim him. He’s been characterized as pro environment, fiscally conservative, progressive on social issues, and yet supports gun rights. In terms of the LRC framework, Howard Dean is clearly schizophrenic. The fact is, Dean is all over the board on the LRC spectrum because the LRC spectrum is a myth.

All people have are positions on issues – and hopefully, an overarching philosophy from which these positions are derived.

Now, there could be an argument made that the LRC framework is code for convenience. ‘So and so is a centrist on economic issues’ actually means a lot of complex things that we all are capable of deciphering. But are we?

Where does candidate A stand on tariffs and trade, progressive taxation, monetary policy? Does “centrist” tell us? Even the language of conservative-liberal fails to inform. I found it striking that Ned Lamont, champion of the netroots, wasted no time after the primary to declare from the pages of the Wall Street Journal that he’s a “fiscal conservative.” What does that mean? Balanced budgets? Trickle down economics? Laissez faire? The term is meaningless in the absence of clearly defined positions and an overarching philosophy from which they are derived.

Not Just What We Say, But What We Think

If you ever find yourself with a sense that something is wrong, or you disapprove of a policy, but you can’t quite put your finger on why, that is usually a sign that your language of representation is ill equipped to actualize, or conceptualize the issue.

Many of the issues we face, from globalization to privatization of government functions, are so new in our political experience that it’s hard to clearly define our opposition to them.

What’s wrong with “outsourcing” our prison management or military intelligence to private contractors?  Is there an overarching philosophy or belief system that these policies are in contravention to?

The answer is yes, of course. But the current language, and consequent framework for opposing such schemes has yet to be clearly defined in the public sphere.

My working explanation of why privatizing prisons is wrong is that I believe fully in the institution of democracy as acted through government and that the outsourcing of such a function undermines, and creates a barrier to, the democratic institutional oversight necessary to maintain the integrity of any state action that would remove a fellow citizen’s sacred freedom.

And that was an easy one.

“Where does candidate X stand on trade, globalization, the abject failure of the Chicago School of Economic’s little experiments with neoliberal policies of the World Bank, or the WTO?”

“She’s a moderate.”

Oh, I see.