For those who study communication, it is an accepted axiom that our language—the words we use—shape and create our reality. Any number of scholars have made such pronouncements: Aristotle, Vico, Kenneth Burke, etc.  The idea they share in common is that the way in which we talk about something—or someone—shapes the way we see it and think about it. In turn, we use these labels and names to both create understanding and to persuade others.

In the political word a label with a long and often powerful lineage is “liberal.”  The connotations of the label have differed by era, but at least since 1988 “liberal” has been appealed to as an accusatory political label.  In choosing 1988 as a significant marker I have in mind the way in which the term was used in that year’s presidential campaign between Republican candidate George H.W. Bush and Democrat candidate Michael Dukakis.  Among other significant elements of that campaign (including the Willie Horton ad, Dukakis's ill fated appearance on an army tank, and Bernard Shaw’s debate question about capital punishment), Bush’s labeling of Dukakis as a “liberal” struck a political chord.  It was such an issue that on the eve of the election Dukakis found himself still trying to explain the label. In subsequent elections, “liberal” has been a favored accusation directed, with varying degrees of success, at candidates such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry.  Further, “conservative” political commentator Ann Coulter has been particularly fond of demonizing the term, using  “liberal” as a means of condemnation in several of her book titles: Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, How to Talk Like a Liberal (if you must), and more.

To be sure, these democrat candidates were more “liberal” than their republican counterparts. But the exact meaning of the term “liberal” is unexplored, and ultimately much less important than the emotional response it is intended to evoke.  It has been appealed to as a devil term, a short hand that substitutes for nuanced policy discussions.  Of course the word “conservative” can be used in the same way, but it rarely seems to have as much political traction; if anything, it has more often been a prized badge.  Candidates have worked to establish their “conservative” credentials, but can we say the same thing about “liberal” credentials?  (The term “conservative” is also much more nuanced than it is often given credit for being, as some Wabash student publications have insightfully explored over the past couple of years).

I share these reflections because of a language-shift that seems to have taken place over the past few months—and my current effort to understand its implications. “Liberal” does not seem to be the term in vogue for criticizing President Obama. Perhaps this is because currently there is more perceived baggage to “conservative” (the presumed counterpart of “liberal”) than there has been in some time.  So, instead, President Obama has more often been called “socialist.”  In fact, several months ago Mark Leibovich of the New York Times made note of this apparent shift, writing that “it seems that ‘socialist’ has supplanted ‘liberal’ as the go-to slur among much of the conservative world.” More recently, the label has been used to voice opposition to President Obama’s speech to school children, which was object to by some as an effort at “indoctrination” and as part of a larger “socialist movement,” as well as to Obama’s views on healthcare, which Republican party chairman Michael Steele calls "socialism."

My point isn’t so much to critique what is “liberal” or “socialist,” but to reflect on the shift in language and its implications.  Why has “socialist” become the more popular attack?  It could be because President Obama’s policy proposals are perceived to be so radically different from his predecessors (Click here for a Socialist's view of Obama's "socialism"). Or it could be that “liberal” has lost some of its sting with the “conservative” movement lacking a defined leader and with the nation coming out of a “conservative” presidency that was much criticized.   The deeper question yet is what these labels—liberal, socialist, or even conservative—really tell us about the policies and ideas under discussion.  Unfortunately the answer is, “very little.” The labels are appealed to because they are easy shorthand for broadly conceived ideologies, not because they are nuanced or insightful. Moreover, their broad use may have additional negative consequences given how they are appealed to in the writings of everyday citizens, which I may comment on in a subsequent posting.