The Politics of Language: Liberalism As Word and Symbol

Chapman University Chapman University Digital Commons Law Faculty Books and Book Chapters Fowler School of Law 1986 The olitP ics of Language: Liberalism as Word and Symbol Ronald D. Rotunda Chapman University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/law_books Part of the American Politics Commons Recommended Citation Rotunda, Ronald. The oP litics of Language: Liberalism as Word and Symbol. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press, 1986. Web. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Books and Book Chapters by an authorized administrator of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Politics of Language The Politics of Language,/ Liberalism as Word and Symbol Ronald D. Rotunda Introduction by Daniel Schorr Afterword by M. H. Hoeflich University of Iowa Press Iowa City University of Iowa Press, Iowa City 52242 TO BILL FREIVOGEL Copyright © 1986 by the University of Iowa All rights reserved My lazvyer, if I should Printed in the United States of America ever need one First edition, 1986 Jacket and book design by Richard Hendel Typesetting by G&S Typesetters, Inc., Austin, Texas Printing and binding by Thomson-Shore, Inc., Dexter, Michigan Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rotunda, Ronald D. The politics of language. Includes index. 1. Liberalism-United States-History. 2. Liberalism-Great Britain History. 3· Symbolism in politics. I. Title. JA84.U5R69 1986 320.5'1 85-24548 ISBN o-87745-139-7 No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without permission in writing from the publisher. To "capture" a word such as democracy-that is, a word which has favorable emotive proper ties-is per se to assure oneself of a formidable position of strength. And to "surrender" to a word with negative associations-to accept for instance the term ideology as the proper label for all that we say in political matters-is in itself to start off with a handicap. Giovanni Sartori, Democratic Theory Natural man, whether simpleton or scientist, knows no more of the linguistic forces that bear upon him than the savage knows of gravita tional forces. Benjamin Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality Contents Introduction, by Daniel Schorr· xi ONE Symbols in Politics and Law · 3 TWO The British Analogy · 18 THREE The United States Background until 1932 · 32 FOUR The Great Debate: 1932-1940 · 52 FIVE Roosevelt and a National Liberal Party · 84 SIX The Epilogue to the Great Debate · 88 Afterword: The Format of Legal and Political Discourse, by M. H. Hoeflich· 99 Notes· 111 Index· 129 Introduction Daniel Schorr In the aftermath of President Reagan's landslide reelection, I became involved in a spirited exchange of corre spondence with a television viewer because I had allowed to go unchallenged a reference to the president as a "lame duck" by a participant in my program. The writer asked me to apologize for this unwarranted slur against a popular president. My explana tion that "lame duck" was an unpejorptive description of an officeholder who could not be reelected produced another angry letter citing a Webster dictionary definition of "lame duck" as an official serving out the remainder of a term after having been de feated. I was rescued by William Safire's Political Dictionary, a manual of "the new language of politics," providing a more cur rent definition of "lame duck" as "an office-holder whose power is diminished because he is soon to leave office, as a result of de feat or statutory limitation" (italics very much mine). This was an example of how the usage of words changes and how much passion can be generated by how they are used in politics. Indeed, words in politics are like emblen1s in wars and revolutions-to be flown, shot at, and sometimes captured. Word wars are not incidental but are central to political strife especially as amplified in this era by the great megaphone of television. As Democrats have appropriated the word "fair" (as in Fair Deal), so Republicans have laid siege to "free" (as in "free en terprise"). The word "new" is contested, the Democrats hav ing produced the New Deal of FDR days and the Republicans counterattacking with New Federalism and, more recently, New Opportunity. No word has been flown more proudly, disputed more hotly xii • INTRODUCTION and, finally, battered more decisively than "liberal." Its original association with the simple word "free" (Latin liber) became lost The Politics of Language in antiquity as it became weighted with changing symbolism on its voyage through time and across the ocean from Europe. As might be expected, "liberal" carried a white-hat connotation during the long generations when liberals dominated the politi cal scene. When the conservatives finally swept in from the wil derness and stormed the bastions of government, they swiftly attached black-hat connotations to the word. (My mail indicates that to call the news media "liberal" has become an accusation, needing no further detailed indictment.) It is fascinating to look back on the vital role that liberalism has played in· history. No single word, other than more general expressions like "rights," "freedom," and "justice," has played a more important role in America's political development. By telling us what has happened to a word, Ronald Rotunda has illuminated what has happened to America. It is done with me ticulous regard for historical scholarship. Some day liberalism may make a comeback, but for now this book will serve as its epitaph. Symbols in Politics and Law Introduction The ancients knew the importance of words. Genesis tells us that after the Lord "fashioned all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven," the first order of priority was 'to bring them to Adam, "to see what he would call them; each one was to bear the name the man would give it. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heaven, and all the wild beasts." Naming things is important business. This book is about naming things-about symbols and labels, the importance of words, their power to manipulate, and why people fight over them. In particular, it is a study of a specific word, "liberal." The liberal label has been a very significant symbol in modern American political and legal history. And for most of this mod ern period, when we have spoken of liberal judges, the Ameri can liberal tradition, and liberal politicians, the adjective has had favorable connotations. In fact, the late Senator Robert Taft, as recently as 1950, argued that he was really liberal; he rejected the conservative tag in favor of the word that then had more favorable connotations. In the 198os liberalism seems to be in disarray, and many poli ticians who formerly embraced the liberal label now want to unpeel the tag. In 1964, when Barry Goldwater, an avowedly conservative Republican candidate, ran against a self-described liberal candidate, President Lyndon Johnson and his Great So ciety won a stunning victory. Yet only two decades later, the un abashedly conservative Ronald Reagan won an equally stunning 4 • THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE Symbols in Politics and Law · 5 reelection victory against the candidate of the liberals, Walter F. Symbols are still useful for generating loyalty in more modern Mondale. governments. Professor Murray Edelman has astutely noted that Much had changed in twenty years. Actually, more had "the most conspicuously democratic institutions are largely 4 changed than many people realize, for it is not generally remem symbolic and expressive in function." The English historian bered that "liberalism" is a relatively new term in American poli Walter Bagehot dem.onstrated how important the symbols of the tics. The British liberals go back many years, but when the Brit monarch and the constitution are for the British. Justice Frank ish Liberal party was in the ascendency in the early part of this furter recognized that the state must use symbols to inculcate in century, there were no American politicians who called them dispensable feelings toward government because "symbolism is 5 selves liberal. Not until Franklin D. Roosevelt battled Herbert inescapable. Even the most sophisticated live by symbols." Hoover did the liberal label become important in the American A symbol can carry great significance for an individual. That lexicon; then both Hoover and Roosevelt claimed to be the true symbol becomes particularly significant whenever it has spe liberals, and the fight over the label dominated intellectual de cial meaning for a large number of people. Although there are bate for much of the New Deal. Each politician sensed the favor those who belittle argument over mere words, one should real able connotations of the word, and each tried to capture it. ize that words are seldom innocuous, for they are our primary Roosevelt won, and since then the word has been used to form of communication. Crucial concepts often lie in shades of describe such diverse groups as certain types of politicians, meaning. judges, and theologians. The disagreement in the late 196os over the phrase "black The fascinating story of the rise and decline of the liberal label power" was, in many respects, an argument over definition. In is not just a study in intellectual history; it is also a story of the one Senate subcommittee hearing, for example, Senator Abra importance of the use of symbols generally-how they reflect ham Ribicoff warned Floyd McKissick, head of CORE and a black and mold the way we think and act.

Load more