WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL ME?
Why insults work better- if you know what they really mean.
I am often called names. The nasty ones are easy enough to ignore, the ones that trouble me are those that are so clueless that they muddy the civic space. I mean, if we don’t know what liberalism or democracy are- how do we protect them?
In the interest of promoting a culture of well-informed name-calling (and preserving democracy), I offer you this simple (and very personal) glossary of choice political swear words. After reading this, if you choose to call me (or anyone else) a conservative, progressive, or fascist- at least you will know what these words mean.
Particularly after Brexit, Trump and Modi, everyone seems to have an opinion on politics. Alas, feelings and opinions acquired in the heat of a crisis tend to be inspired by our fears and hence are, often, wrong. Also, having taught about political systems and their vulnerabilities since at least 2016, I’ve realized that few people know what they are talking about. This is especially true of all those who cry hoarse about ‘Saving Democracy’ and ‘Increasing Diversity’. For the record, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are equally clueless but (in their defense) they would rather kill you than live in a diverse democracy.
Don’t get me wrong, everyone knows the US and France are democracies while China and the UAE are not, they also know the Nazis were fascists and Stalin was a Communist. Many even associate democracies with elections, minority rights, and the right to ‘speak truth to power’. But beyond this, things get murkier- and when asked for details they can respond with ‘Fascist’ or ‘Despot’! So, here is my personal take on some commonly used political terms. But first let’s establish the difference between a democracy and a republic:
Democracy: From demokratia, meaning 'rule by the people', a democracy is a system of government where the people rule themselves, or through elected representatives. In a pure democracy the majority makes all the decisions, however, most democracies have checks and balances that prevent the majority from running roughshod over minorities. A democracy can be either liberal or illiberal, presidential or parliamentary, direct or representative.
A democracy is the most complicated relationship anyone can be in, one that requires affection for one’s fellow citizens, trust in institutions, and the willingness to continuously make compromise (for the common good). Most people take this complex and demanding relationship for granted, which explains why they are breaking down everywhere. Everybody loves a democracy because it promises a multiplicity of good things- equality, justice, dignity, and meatless chicken in every pot. That is, everybody except fundamentalists, ultra-nationalists, and Marxists- because the idea of giving infidels, aliens and the bourgeoise rights and freedoms makes them froth at the mouth. What nobody will tell you is that democracy and diversity (beautiful as they are) are almost impossible to manage, leave alone sustain. Despite that, I love living in a liberal democracy- but then, I don’t have to run one.
Republic: From res publica meaning 'public affair', a republic is a state which is ruled by the public either through elected representatives, or by their nomination (often based on personal status). A republic is headed by an elected or nominated President and not a monarch. The US is a democratic republic with a constitution that protects individual rights. The UK is not a republic, it is a democratic monarchy that protects individual rights (though it is somewhat dodgy on free speech).
Of late US Republicans, weary of the leftwards shift of the electorate and terrified by a progressive legislature and judiciary, have been reminding people that the USA is a republic and not a democracy. Deeply concerned that an unrestrained democracy would lead to mob rule and tyranny, they are skeptical of using the levers of government to radically change society.
PICKING SIDES:
Now that we’ve gotten that stuff out of the way, let’s get down to the serious business of name calling. Here are some handy names to call each other.
Fundamentalist: As the term suggests, a fundamentalist is someone who adheres to the fundamental or foundational principles of any ideology or faith. Hence those who swear by the tenets (and the strict, literal interpretation) of the Das Kapital, the Koran, or The Carnivore Code can be said to be fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are conservatives on acid and have as much to do with real conservatives as drinking water has to do with floods. In both cases the water looks and feel the same, but while one nourishes, the other drowns you. While religious fundamentalists are squarely on the extreme right of the political spectrum (left-right), one can also be a left-wing (Marxist) fundamentalist at the other end of the spectrum. It is wholly reasonable to label a Fundamentalist as Hard Left or Hard Right!
I confess that of late I’ve been developing a grudging sympathy for fundamentalists (or as my Indian friends would call them ‘fundus’). These days it is difficult not to be as distressed as they are by the devastations caused by change and progress. Decades of technological and social innovation have destroyed our communities, personal relationships and even our attention spans (without which we can say goodbye to quality thinking). Engaging with fundamentalists in my conflict resolution work has left me fascinated and terrified. Perhaps they should be given their own communities, societies and even nations- far-far away, where they can’t mess with the rest of us.
Conservative: The classic definition of a conservative is someone who holds traditional values and is not enamored of change for change’s sake. Conservatives are also likely to respect and wish to preserve existing institutions, laws, and norms. In political terms conservatives also tend to favor small government and a free market economy. Conservatives are on the right of the political spectrum but calling them hard-right would risk trivializing the term- most conservatives are closer to the center than people imagine.
Conservatives have gotten a really bad rap- as boring stick-in-the-muds. However, we should probably be paying them closer attention. A century or two of breakneck technological and social ‘progress’ should have shown us that all progress (individual freedoms, automobiles, smart phones) comes with unintended consequences. If to appreciate something, we need to first lose it, then reasonable people should have become eminently appreciative of the world that we have lost. And yet, instead of moving with caution and prudence, we demand even more ‘progress’, and ‘transformation’. As though chaos and anarchy are best addressed through greater change- not more stability.
Liberal: The original definition of a liberal is one who is open minded and willing to hear (and often accept) behaviors or opinions different from his own. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a liberal’s open-mindedness doesn’t come from her nonjudgemental nature, or even from her dogmatic hatred of ‘close-mindedness’. Instead, it comes from a conviction that understanding the sheer complexity of life on the planet requires an open mind (unbeholden to old experience or knowledge), and sharp senses (uncolored by dullness or prejudice). In political terms liberals have always supported individual rights, free speech and been open to changing society and its institutions- as long as reason and evidence justified it. They are also more likely to favor policies that demand that the government step in to protect the weakest members of society (where necessary and if possible). Most importantly a liberal is driven by reason and is almost never dogmatic (even about protecting the weak). Liberals are very much on the Left of the political spectrum, but closer to the center than people imagine.
To the best of my understanding of the term, I have always been a staunch liberal. Like all liberals, I believe in being open minded and believe that the strong have a moral responsibility to help the weak. However, I am realistic enough to distrust anyone who promises to remove all suffering- and do not (any longer) fantasize about creating a perfect world. If anything, a lifetime of working with people and relationships has convinced me that the crooked timber of humanity cannot be straightened out without extreme cruelty. As a liberal I believe in independent thinking, trust robust evidence and reason, and distrust the kind of groupthink that passes of as progressive ‘thought’ today.
Libertarian: A libertarian is someone who believes so strongly in individual autonomy and political freedom that he opposes all forms of authority, including that of the family, military or the state. Libertarians are unlikely to be very conservative except in matters pertaining to the power of the state- which they distrust and wish to diminish. In Europe an enthusiasm for social welfare puts Libertarians on the Left side of the political spectrum, while in the US their distrust of government and all forms of authority, moves them towards the Right. Given their lack of interest in actual politics, they occupy a perch all their own.
Libertarianism is the wet dream of the irresponsible and the unaccountable. I guess between the ages of 16 and 17, listening to Lennon’s ‘Imagine’, I may have wondered what a world without borders, passports and school uniforms might have looked like. Thankfully, I loved wrestling with ideas- so I grappled that one into the mat and vanquished the little bugger.
Progressive: A Progressive refers to someone who believes in the idea and necessity of continuously improving society, politics and culture. While the word itself might denote something developing gradually or in stages, the progressive movement is anything but. Progressives, being impatient with the manifest inequalities of society seek to radically (and quickly) reinvent all systems- economic, cultural and social. A progressive used to mean someone who believed in trade unions, universal healthcare, prison reform and the like. Today it just as likely means dismantling the patriarchy, advocating an LGBTQ+ agenda, and opening Western borders to the rest of the world. Progressivism is on the extreme left of the political spectrum. It is wholly accurate to label a Progressive as Hard Left!
Was I ever a progressive? Between fifteen and thirty, I might have been so disdainful of religion and middle-class morality that I might have fantasized blowing it all up and creating an alternative socio/political system- with me at the helm, of course. These days I don’t advocate for dismantling all social and political systems in the name of social justice, for the same reason that I don’t care for Musk’s idea of jettisoning the Earth to inhabit another planet. Radical change, like surgery should be used sparingly and that too only when the system in question has become, both, dangerous and irreparable. The US health care system and the globalized high-consumption economy come to mind.
Socialist: Capitalism rewards the productive person as well as those whose capital can be invested to generate greater wealth. Capitalism gives rise to acute inequalities, where the wealthy and the productive thrive while many others are left behind. The socialist is, hence, understandably skeptical of private ownership of resources and demands the social ownership of the means of production. While such ownership may be public, community, collective, cooperative or employee based, socialists tend to be very distrustful of family ownership since it reminds them of oppressive feudalism. Socialists believe that collective ownership of resources and greater governmental support for the needy will eliminate poverty inequality and create a just world. Socialism is very much on the left of the political spectrum, but to the right of communism.
What’s there to not like about a system that eliminates greedy and wasteful capitalism? How can one not love a system that takes care of everybody’s needs? I guess, IF there could be a form of socialism that was able to do all this; IF it would still leave space for individual initiative and entrepreneurship; IF we could ensure that autocrats would not take over the government (and oligarchs would not gain control of the economy); IF regulations and bureaucrats wouldn’t stifle all creativity- perhaps I might be open to it.
‘IF’ also happens to be one of the most dangerous words in English language.
Communist: While socialists want to have social ownership of production, communism is a socio-economic movement that seeks to create a society where everything is controlled by the workers through a centralized state. The state would not just own all resources and the means of production, it would also distribute goods and services based on its determination of your (legitimate) needs. Communism is an effective pathway to totalitarianism and like Progressivism is on the extreme left end of the spectrum. It is wholly accurate to label a Communist as Hard Left!
Growing up in the state of Kerala, in India, you couldn’t throw a stone without hitting a communist- or starting an insurgency. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the capitalist revolution in China, communism still finds passionate defenders in Kerala. I suspect that anyone who still fantasizes about a communist state today is either a wannabe despot or deeply unserious. So, no, I have never been a card-carrying communist- and confess to having found Mao’s Little Red Book hugely amusing.
Fascist: Where communism centralizes all resources and power within the authoritarian state, fascism is the centralization of political power in a dictatorial leader who represents the nation and the race. Fascism is a totalitarian ideology and is characterized by suppression of all opposition, including the right to speech or assembly- for the perceived good of the race and nation. It is implacably opposed to anarchism, democracy and Marxism. Placed on the far-right of the political spectrum, it is wholly accurate and necessary to identify Fascists as Hard Right!
It is also important to recognize that there are no serious fascist parties or leaders today. Even the National Rally and the AfD, conservative as they are, still play by liberal democracy’s rules. Trump is too undisciplined to be one; Orban wants to protect his people from Western progressivism; and Putin and Modi have (as of yet) failed to mount an effective fascist takeover of their countries. I have often wondered how, between the Wars, so many including Edward, the unfortunate Prince of Wales, could have been enamored of fascism. I mean, it makes sense that a humiliated and devastated nation like Germany might have found the promise of racial or nationalistic supremacy attractive. But fascists in the UK, France, or USA? What was their motivation especially since, at that time, these were relatively homogeneous societies without a threatening minority? I can’t see the attraction, unless, like wannabe communists, hidden in their little jack-booted feet, they fantasized about lording over the rest of us.
Tyrant/ Despot/ Dictator/ Autocrat: A ‘Dictator’ was someone elected by the ancient Romans to rule- in times of emergency. While a tyrant is always oppressive, despots, dictators and autocrats, while also having absolute power, do not necessarily have to be tyrannical. They could sometimes be benign, even if that is a difficult trick to pull off when you can do anything you want! While we moderns love our freedoms and rights, history tells us that in times of national humiliation and societal collapse, we will surrender all power to a strong leader who can keep us safe. Despots and tyrants are so powerful that they don’t give a fig for what you call them- as long as it is not to their faces.
What makes slurs like “Despot” or “Tyrant” so attractive is their sheer versatility. You don’t have to be Saddam Hussein or Idi Amin to be called any of these. Give tough feedback to a colleague’s marketing plan, reject another’s idea for the Christmas party, tell your child that ice cream comes after broccoli- and you become a ‘dictator’. So, by all means call your spouses, supervisors, and elected leaders any or all of these. Just a word of warning- leaders tend to be paranoid because they never know when you will go beyond name calling and resort to violence. This is why they love pre-emptive strikes.
Populist/ Demagogue: Populist is a strange term- after all shouldn’t every elected leader be a kind of a populist by virtue of having won the popular vote. Populism is a mass uprising driven by frustration with elite arrogance, incompetence, and corruption. It can be either rightwing or leftwing and- because it comes out of frustration with the slow and clumsy democratic process- it is almost always illiberal. A populist who appeals to the people by playing on their ignorance, insecurities, fears and prejudices, is a demagogue. It is also not unusual for a populist leader to have the mass adulation go to his head and think of himself as Savior. Even more than tyrants and dictators, they don’t care what you call them- because the people love them.
Electoral results being tied to popular vote, a democracy will always attract and breed populists and demagogues. As the techies say, it is not a bug, but a feature. A politician who eschews emotional appeals and instead appeals to reason or a fair share for the ‘enemy’ will fight only one election- his last. It is noteworthy that winners don’t call themselves populists or demagogues, that’s what losers call them. Winners speak of themselves as transformative figures, brought to power by the wisdom of crowds, with a mandate to overthrow everything!
So, there you have it- the Village idiot’s affordable and mildly nutty glossary of (political) swear words for any occasion. As with wine, it is important to pair these with your audience. Every group you belong to (and speak for) has its designated pariahs. If your friends are conservative, you may call the heretic a Marxist; if your group is progressive, you can call her a neo-liberal; if it is college students, just call him a fascist. And if you do your name-calling behind their backs, they will never know why nobody talks to them anymore.
Only losers reject the cheap dopamine rush that comes from name calling. Not attacking people with off-the-shelf names and insults is inefficient- because it forces you to engage deeply with them. After work, yoga, social media and girls-night out, who has the time to ‘understand’ anyone anymore? If you had to listen, engage, reason and draw your own conclusions, you might as well become a bloody liberal. And where’s the fun in that?