Lady Jennifer paused again. "How are we doing so far? Still hanging in there?" She was getting some nods of encouragement. "Good.
"When I started this line about context, I said there are two serious problems associated wit it. We covered the first one, which is believing that you understand the words of people who live in different worlds, and the disadvantage liberals have in this case. The other problem is far more insidious.
"Just as the meaning of words cannot be fully understood unless the context they are being used is known, the flips side can also be true. That is, sometimes words come with a context already associated with them. This already established context makes them susceptible to something we call context hijacking.
"In context hijacking you take the context of one word in order to replace the context of another. A couple of benign examples that are easy to understand are the evolution of stewardess to flight attendant, and secretary to administrative assistant. In both of these cases, neither job actually changed, just the names.
"The reason for the name change is that negative connotations got associated with the original terms, and rather than educating the populace about the real importance of these positions, the members of these positions decided to call themselves something else to give people a more positive idea of what they do.
"Like I said, these examples are benign. The important thing to take note at this time is that they did not do this for those that belonged to their group. They did this for those outside of it, and more important to note is that they did this because they did not want to bother with educating those outside of their group of the importance of their work.
"When I began this lesson on what are words for, I mentioned that liberalism was once an enlightened form of thought. It actually was, but that hasn't been true since the beginning of the twentieth century. At the time, liberalism was about focusing on the individual and liberating him to be the best that he can be.
"Then something happened, and I'll let the words of Norman Thomas explain it. He said these words in 1927, and then went on to be the six-time nominee of the Socialist Party for the president of the United States. He said, 'The American people would never vote for socialism…but under the name of liberalism, the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.'
"I'm still not able to define enlightenment for you, but I can assure you socialism is one of the many antithesis to it. Socialism is about sacrificing the individual for the common good, yet there cannot be a common good when the individual is sacrificed. When socialists hijacked the context of liberalism, liberalism died as an enlightened form of thought.
"I'm sure the socialists at the time thought that they were enlightened, and they wanted to use liberalism because they believed that socialism got its name unfairly associated with negative things. Yet just as the names flight attendant and administrative assistant are used by people who don't want to educate those outside of their group, the same can be said of liberals. They do not want to educate people outside of their group either; specifically that they are socialist.
"The big question to ponder here is, who are the ones that are outside of their group that they don't want to hear that they are socialists. They are not doing it for conservatives. Most conservatives are those that left liberalism once they understood it to be socialism, so the context hijacking is not going to work on them.
"This goes to a key difference between conservatives and liberals that we'll get into more on another day. Liberals are actually made up of two distinct groups. There are the elites, and there are the tools — although a more accurate label is the socialist and their useful idiots.
"Whether you are a tool or an elite depends upon your motivation in defending liberalism from the charge that it is nothing more than socialism. If you actually believe that the charge is false, then you are a tool. If on the other hand you believe that most people will never understand that socialism is the best thing for them, then you are an elite. If you actually respected people enough to try to convince them that socialism is the right thing, then you are a socialist, and you would have no need for liberalism.
"Conservatism on the other hand has no need for context hijacking. Everyone in it is expected to understand it. The closest example of context hijacking that I have seen from a conservative is when the current President Bush ran as a 'compassionate' conservative. This absolutely infuriated me, because this implied that conservatism is normally not compassionate.
"Yet the exact opposite is true. If you want to be compassionate you must start with conservative principles. Compassion is not something you demand someone else to do for you — like the government. Compassion is something you must do your self. George Bush set the conservative agenda way back by that campaign. Like I said, conservative politicians are always our worst enemy.
"Any questions so far?" Lady Jennifer asked. Sandra Nelson and Alyson Frazier raised their hands. "Yes Sandra?"
"Mistress Jennifer, since you are saying that liberalism is not enlightened, are you implying that conservatism is?" Sandra asked.
"Oh, heavens no!" exclaimed Lady Jennifer. "I think it's pretty safe to say that most conservatives are not enlightened — hence the politicians that claim to be conservative. Yet conservatism is a good place to start towards enlightenment. Most conservatives know they are going in the right direction, but they don't really understand why."
Then looking at Alyson, "Your question, Ally."
"Mistress Jennifer, I just can't see calling myself a conservative. Are there any other options?"
"The problem you are having is that you see conservatism as a group identity, not as a form of thought," replied Lady Jennifer. Then after thinking a few moments she said, "This reminds me of a scene in a movie about Gandhi. A reporter asked him that since he was always quoting Christ, why wasn't he a Christian? Then Gandhi replied, 'because of Christians.'
"So his rejection of Christianity was because of the actions of Christians, not because of Christ himself. This is a mistake made by many people. They focus on the negative in a group to the detriment of themselves, instead of finding the positive, which can build their lives to something they could ever imagine.
"A political example of this is a lesbian talk radio host called Tammy Bruce. She was once the president of the Los Angeles branch of the National Organization of Women. Once she finally understood what liberalism really was, she was faced with the same predicament you are. Her solution was to call herself a Classical Liberal in order to bring back the original meaning of the word. Personally, I think she is just fooling herself.
"What she does not understand is that if conservatism fails in this country, then everything she is fighting for will fail also. Her refusal to become a conservative, and shape the conservative movement into something she finds more acceptable to her, is really nothing more than her formal liberal thinking creeping out that it is more important to make a statement than it is to be effective.
"The absolute worst examples of this are the libertarians. Or as another talk show host calls them, the 'losertarians,' because that is what they are. These people are no different than liberals in their need to make a statement, rather than actually accomplishing anything in life. The only impact they have had, is making sure liberals have won political races that conservatives could have taken. I'll have a lot more to say on the masturbatory acts of libertarians on another day.
"Getting back to Gandhi; my mind reels with the possibilities for the future of Christianity if Gandhi had decided to become a Christian. As a pure theological exercise, it's quite fascinating. Not only would Christianity as a whole had benefited, but so would have he."
Then back to Alyson, "Ally, you have the same sort of choice to make. Are you going to accept how conservatism is defined for you, and run from it, or are you going to make it into what you believe it should be? Tammy Bruce and all of those 'losertarians' have decided that it is best for conservatism as they see it to fail, as if this is going to benefit them in some way; as if this is not going to devastate everything they claim to be working for.
"So are you going to work in a way that benefits your life, or are you more concerned with not associating yourself with those you only somewhat disagree with?
Source: reddit.com/r/eroticliterature/comments/2q6zfb/next_generation_christian_kingdom_ch04_what_are