A common complaint found in public discourse is that persons may not be permitted to say what they desire and mean to say, because interpretations of words are forced on them by listeners. This can become even more objectionable when word meanings change without agreements and understandings in any discussion. The communicators contribute problems. Almost invariably they add their spin to what is communicated. We may despair about gaining whole truth in what we hear or read. Meanings of words, like conservative and liberal change for the public.
When the American Colonies won the Revolutionary War, after eight years of misery suffered most heavily by colonial military troops, a new government was eventually established, affirmed as democratic and based on human rights for the individual citizen under law. The documents also affirmed that these rights came from God. The form of the government was presumed to be liberal, liberal in the extreme as they were interpreted by other nations. The divine right of kings (primacy of government), was replaced by the new liberal view of divine rights of citizens (primacy of citizens). Not only was this new notion liberal, it was perceived to be experimental. Many presumed it would fail. More than 250 years later, this experiment has become increasingly the desire of nations. Suspicion about government led to the concept that the least government (perceived as a change to liberal concepts) is at odds with the conservative (perceived as the control of the citizenry by government). Alexander Hamilton wanted more government. Thomas Jefferson wanted less. The line-up of the founding fathers on either side created great tensions, but the fresh concept of individual rights prevailed. George Washington turned the tide. The nation flourished. The huddled masses poured across its borders – and still do.
During my lifetime the Great Depression of 1929 came upon the world. It was not well understood, but caused significant challenge to the concept of less government. The president, Herbert Hoover, who believed in the less government public concept, lost popularity, and was succeeded by Franklin Roosevelt who introduced the new liberal concept of more government. This was that the government should be used as an instrument for social welfare to take on the ravages of a massive depression. In the success of the election of the new candidate the former conservatives became the new liberals, and the former liberals became the new conservatives. The exchange of terms adjusted so to stick in the nation’s psyche. We likely misuse ourselves in this shifting of language that may hinder solutions in society. The point is similar in all fields, including communities of faith. The radical teachings of Jesus were once taken as the liberal point-of-view. They broke with the old in some ways, offering a fresh approach to the spiritual needs of all persons. Today, liberal may refer to the latest social offering (which may be a return to a former). The former position was presumed to be conservative, perhaps outmoded. Any change is now taken as liberal. We yearn for truth, whether old or new. Truth is our goal, not tradition or change. Truth must be found and applied if mankind is to improve the situation in social and spiritual contexts for life, faith and hope. The terms liberal and conservative may not be very helpful in the larger social development. God waits on mankind to deal with problems to solutions rather than labels and preferences in politics. We need a new perception of cooperation and currency between social entities to solve problems in society. We might be surprised to discover that several ways to solutions might work if unity is gained. Variant sides might find a way that works when there is unity for truth and problem solving. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020