Michael Liebowitz is, along with Brett McCall, the co-author of Down the Rabbit Hole, reviewed a few years ago in Connecticut Commentary. Both are Connecticut prisoners, neither of whom has let his mind go fallow while serving time. Michael has appeared frequently on WTIC News Talk1080, Todd Feinburg’s radio talk show, is refreshingly grateful, and believes he has been justly punished. Down the Rabbit Hole, subtitled How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime, is not an apologia for crimes committed; it is highly and, some readers of the book may agree, justly analytical. The essay below by Liebowitz is also analytical and will repay close scrutiny.
 |
| Orwell |
A man may take to
drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more
completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to
the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are
foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish
thoughts—George Orwell
My thesis is simple: Words matter.
Consider the following: When debating whether to adopt the
U.S. Constitution, there were, generally speaking, two camps. Those who wanted
a stronger government favored accepting the Constitution, while those who
preferred state sovereignty and a loose confederation of states opposed it.
Traditionally, the latter were called “federalists.” Then an interesting
development occurred; the proponents of the Constitution took to calling
themselves “federalists.” As a result, the traditional federalists were then
called “anti-federalists”, not a very appealing appellation. Anyway, the new
federalists prevailed.
At the turn of the 20th century, advocates for a
bigger government and greater intervention in the economy were known as
progressives.” The term “liberal”, on the other hand, referred to someone who
advocated representative government, the rule of law, free markets, and
individual freedom. At some point, however, the word “progressive” fell into
disfavor, and the big-government crowd appropriated the term “liberal,” turning
it on its head. Soon enough though, “liberal” itself became a term of
disparagement; so the radicals went back to calling themselves “progressives.”
Now, consider the word “democracy”, which means majority
rule. This is an idea the Constitution’s framers never supported. They
understood that majorities could be every bit as oppressive as kings; so they
built structures into our system of government to limit majority power. In fact,
“democracy” isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Nevertheless, American
politicians on both the left and the right frequently employ such phrases as
“our democracy”, “democratic structures”, and “democratic norms”. It’s been a
silent coup for democracy’s proponents.
A further example of both the power and misuse of words
pertains to disagreements about how the Constitution should be interpreted. One
side, called “originalists”, argues that it should be interpreted according to
the meaning of the text at the time it was written. The other side, “the
judicial activists” favors interpreting the Constitution according to modern
usage and evolving standards of decency. This latter group contends that the
Constitution is a “living” document. The famous originalist and Supreme Court
Justice, Antonin Scalia, once said that calling it a “living Constitution” was
an interesting tactic, as it put him in the position of defending a dead
Constitution. Justice Scalia understood the power of words.
In each of these cases, it was the side that controlled the
language that was most successful in advancing its cause. Obviously, the terms
they employed weren’t the sole reason for their success, but it would be naïve
to underestimate the importance of those terms.
“Equity” is the latest fashionable term. It seems that with
every news broadcast comes reports of inequities. Whether referencing health
care, education, income, etc. we are assured that inequities exist and they
need to be remedied. But what does equity actually mean? The relevant
definition is: “The state, quality. Or ideal of being just, impartial, and
fair.
Now, consider the policy recommendations of the apostles of
equity. They want the government to force some to pay for the health care of others,
compel some citizens to finance the education of others’ children, and make
business owners pay a minimum wage. The latest demand for equity in Connecticut
concerns the legalization of marijuana. Some are insisting that equity require
that particular groups, those “justice impacted” by marijuana prohibition, be
given priority in obtaining licenses to sell the weed.
My question is: How
is any of that equitable? When the state puts its hefty foot on the scale to favor
certain voters at the expense of others, it is neither fair nor just, let alone
impartial. Only a master of prestidigitation could convince fair-minded people
otherwise.
As a libertarian, it pains me that advocates for big
government have been able to get away with this for so long. And it doesn’t
help when people claiming to be proponents of freedom adopt the same tactic.
For instance, in the current debate about whether zoning laws should be
controlled by state or municipal governments, those who prefer local
governments have claimed “it’s a matter of individual choice, and the free market
should decide. Now, any advocate of liberty should understand that it’s
irrelevant which government tells people what they can or can’t do with their
own property. Either way, individual rights are violated, or free markets are
hampered. In other words, neither side is promoting liberty.
So, what can be done? First of all, we need to realize that
words have meaning. Second, as much as possible, we should be clear and exact in
our political discourses, thus leaving little room for misunderstanding.
Intelligent people can disagree, but their disagreements shouldn’t spring from
a deceptive (or merely inaccurate) use of language.
Michael Liebowitz #252419
Osborn C.I.
P.O. Box 100
335 Bilton Rd.
Somers, CT 06071
Comments