Last week on a radio program, I was explaining the robust concept of the Rule of Law, and tried to distinguish between the ideas of legality and Rule of Law. The example of Hitler is not only appropriate, but also echoes the example given by one of my key sources on this. In his 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek describes Adolf Hitler as one who came to power by legal means, but who clearly did not comport himself with the principle known as Rule of Law.
A gentleman called into the program almost immediately and started his comments by claiming that I had said President Bush is evil and I compared him to Adolf Hitler. I had made no such claim or comparison. It would be easy to berate this person as a nutbag, but I think the episode illustrates something deeper, and thereby calls forth something more than a mere refutation.
We are all susceptible to hearing through our frame of reference, and those frames color how we think and what we hear. Hear “Hitler” on a progressive radio station, and the automatic link to Bush appears in the mind of a conservative listener. Hear “War on Terror” on a conservative radio station, and a progressive will automatically think unnecessary war in Iraq. It’s the automatic aspect that betrays the existence of a frame, and the frame usually replaces real thought. Of course, the whole idea of a liberal-conservative split is our current, dominant frame.
There are people whose power interests are supported by the perpetuation of such a frame. Not everyone falls into it unwittingly. The power interests served by the frame are actually a small group. The rest of us have had this liberal-conservative split infect our thinking like a virus, unknown and unnoticed until it makes us very sick. None of us are immune to this, but increased consciousness can help us stay out of the trap. Even more important is the replacement of this frame with the more subtle and interesting frame provided in Call to Liberty. I hope more people will try to make the move.
Anthony Signorelli is the author of Call to Liberty: Bridging the Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives.
I agree with you that the current thinking in terms of the liberal/conservative split is very harmful. I liked in your book how you attempted at getting to the root meaning of political terms. I think that a lot of people don't even have a clue what the current mainstream meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" really mean. And rightly so. These meanings have been muddle and mixed and confused. To sound like a "liberal" now, as I am going to criticize Bush, I want to say that Bush is far from conservative. Preemptive war and insane amounts of government spending is hardly "conservative." The founding fathers warned of getting into foreign entanglements and bankrupting the country is just as bad as raising taxes.
I heard a radio personality say on Air America radio that he would vote for Hilary Clinton above all the Republican candidates because there are no decent candidates coming from the right. He said that if Hilary got into the presidency, the people could push her to make positive changes, such as get out of Iraq. As it goes to show, the Democrats have laid down on their duty to carry out the people's will. Why do you think Cindy Sheehan has gotten out of the Democratic Party recently? Both sides are controlled and having Hilary as president will do nothing to benefit this country.
I think people should vote on candidate that they truly believe in, not simply because they are in a certain party. I disagree with the radio show host that there are no Republican candidates that are worthy of the presidency. Ron Paul, Rep from Texas, is my choice. He voted against the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, the War in Iraq, regulating the Internet, etc. He doesn't vote for any bill that's unconstitutional. He wants to phase out the IRS and the Federal Reserve, since our monetary system is based on debt-based fiat currency. He's got a strong grassroots following, but the mainstream media will hardly touch him with a ten-foot pole.
Thank you Tom A for your comments. It is interesting that Ron Paul keeps appearing on the radar screen. I have been asked about him on several occasions, and most markedly, not asked about any other candidate. I confess to knowing little about Ron Paul, but all the questions are creating interest.
Also, I think you are right on. An interesting note is this: We might not be in the pickle we are in if we had a real conservative in the White House. Many progressives believe we need strong progressive leadership. However, let's not forget that real conservatives, perhaps like Ron Paul or even Bob Barr, would oppose this nonsense, too. Are we missing progressivism? Or is the body politic sick because it lacks real conservatism? A challenging question for one who thinks himself more progressive.