This article was written to address how the local Richmond, VA newspapers: The Voice, the Free Press and the Richmond Defenders’ as well as the other neo-liberal groups of our society are promulgating their ideas.

Ignoble Propagandists

A common ideological trend is and has been molding key concepts of classical liberal politics to fit the lock and open the door to propagate neo-liberal politics. Such concepts as freedom, justice, and equality, to name a few, are wildly spun from one direction to another; like the magician who has tricks to misdirect you, so do the neo-liberals. In this case the trick is the very words they use, such as: freedom, justice, equality, and rights, and the way they use them. What does it mean when our modern liberals say a hungry man is not free, or the people must be free from homelessness, or we must be free from ignorance? What do they mean when they say [in the name of justice], everyone has a right to a living wage, a right to healthcare, a right to decent housing, or that we are all equal, not only in the eyes of the law, but equal in the sense of natural endowment or personal efficacy? What is it then when they use a concept that seems to already have a meaning, meanwhile construing it to mean something else, though at face value it appears to retain the same meaning?

The error of reasoning, or the trick that is practiced by the neo-liberals is known as equivocation.

Equivocation functions by using a concept with an already specified meaning, then to use the same concept, knowingly or not, with a different unspecified meaning than the first, in the same context, to covertly or dogmatically purport an ideology immune from opposition. For example, the neo-liberals state, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is meaningless without the right to an education, to a job, to retirement money, and on the list goes. There very usage of the above phrase implies that they understand the meaning, so why do they try to pass on their version of ‘rights’ as possessing the same meaning? Simple, it serves the crudest dissemination of ideas: propaganda.

Perhaps a little background information on what rights mean in the tradition of classical liberal political philosophy the founding fathers espoused as well as the neo-liberal political philosophy espoused today, will shed light on one of the many differences between the two theories, and aid insight into this overlooked propaganda technique.

Here’s the classical liberal theory of rights briefly writ for you. Rights, positively, are for you to take a course of action towards subsistence, to expand your subsistence (wealth), and to pursue ends leading towards the goal of life—happiness; negatively, rights subordinate another and government from usurping your rights to pursue happiness so long as it’s within the said limits of law. This implies personal responsibility for your own actions and life choices that you make towards a desired end; however, it’s not guaranteed that you will achieve the ends you seek, or achieve happiness; still, you’re guaranteed the freedom to act towards those desired ends and towards happiness. The classical liberal theory is predicated on your life as a primary, i.e., your life belongs to you and to you only, and at the same time each and every other individual’s life belongs to them and to them only.

Our modern liberals disagree, though covertly. They say rights are sanctions to have, not to act or pursue—that rights are entitlements to goods, materials, intellect, and somehow happiness. Sustaining your own life, earning or achieving anything is a non-issue, it’s already yours by virtue of being alive, hence you don’t have to be responsible for taking action towards desired ends or happiness, it will be provided for you. Provided by whom? If those who don’t have receive goods by right, someone must be producing the goods to be given or to be taken by the government (tax money, for example). Following this vein rights aren’t universal, rights are only for some; those who are recipients of government-confiscated goods have rights, those who are government officials have rights, and they are to violate your rights in the name of rights—the notion of rights for some always translates into duties for others. On the whole, the neo-liberal theory views life collectively as a primary, i.e., you the individual are a mere servant to the primary called society.

One can now see the opposite meanings of this concept, however our neo-liberals present the two as the same, i.e., they want you to think that the two radically opposed meanings of the concept ‘right’ are the same. They don’t explicitly re-define the concept to fit their political philosophy; they try to sneak it by you through the smokescreen of equivocation. Seeking to clearly state their ideas and argue for them isn’t necessarily a virtue for our neo-liberals.

What the thinking and non-thinking man should know is that this just one manifestation of propaganda, and that all propaganda per se, characterizes ideological bankruptcy. Accordingly, the neo-liberals who propagandize assume that those on the receiving end are just prepped parrots devoid of discernment—that they’re going to erode our rights with foolish propagations.

That being said, the best way to defend yourself against propaganda a la equivocation is firstly, to recognize it, secondly, seek the definitions of words that you may think are being construed, e.g., ‘freedom’ from ignorance, a ‘right’ to employment, or all humans are ‘equal’, for the purpose of clarity. Remember, what oil is to a car, clarity is to thinking, without it the motor ceases to run; consequently, someone has to push or tow it, and our neo-liberals are more than willing to help.