I tell you, when you are willing to do “whatever it takes” you are no longer a conservative, and no longer a representative of either Christian or traditional American morality.
You see, Confucius got famous for preaching a set of moral values coupled with strategies for running a state effectively. Or, more accurately, the set of values arose out of his concern for the problems of statecraft.

One of those values is what he called, “Rectification of Names.” The idea was to quit describing things falsely for the sake of market effect or ego-stroking. Try to figure out what it really is, and then – call it that!

Then, when we see-and-say more accurately what things really are, we are more likely to know how to relate effectively to those things.

That would not fly too well with most of us if applied too thoroughly.

We’re not “handicapped” – we’re challenged. Then “challenged” becomes a bad word and we need a new one – which in its turn becomes a problem, BECAUSE it is associated with the real problem that is really there and has to be described one way or another.

By this neo-Confucian standard, some of us really are just handicapped, strong, bald, beautiful (or both), obese, lazy, disciplined, smart, rich, poor, some mixture of any or all of the above, or whatever we are. “I yam what I yam,” “A rose by any other name is still a rose,” etc. I’m not promoting indifference here. Just the opposite. It takes attention and care to be able to begin describing things accurately.

I don’t mind “under-privileged.” It is very descriptive of reality. So is “discriminated against” or, for that matter, “handicapped.” Me, I’m old, bald, vision and hearing are deteriorating, and not everone thinks I’m wonderful.

I’m a liberal. And I’m a conservative. I don’t mind that reality. I do mind the misuse of those terms, however. And that’s pretty much the point here.

Of course I try, and I hope we all try, to err on the side of courtesy and of respect for all persons and individuals. That is elementary Christian morality.

Still, truthfulness has to play a significant role in that. We’re being asked to supply grown-up integrity, good judgment and love here. And, as the guy said, “love covers a multitude of sins” or other “issues.”


Now a term that REALLY needs revisiting is the word “Conservative” these days.

Some of the most radical thinkers in American history are calling themselves “Conservative” while they try to destroy all that the founders, and multiplied millions of people who have payed very high prices since the Founders, have built or preserved for us.

Many of these self-described “conservatives” are radicals in the worst sense of the word, destructive extremists in philosophy and in behavior.

“Whatever it takes” has been their proud motto. I tell you, when you are willing to to “whatever it takes” you are no longer a conservative, and no longer a representative of either Christian or traditional American morality.

And the way they talk! Vicious, rude as the day is long, lie upon lie upon lie. In a more moral society most of them would be unemployed and some of them would be in prison. They spew hate and contempt, and all richly lathered with lies.

And all for money or for the attention and approval of the powerful.

Not very Jesus-like, have you noticed? Very un-Jesus-like.

“The Conservative Book Club.” It hurts even to type it. The “Conservative Book Club” peddles this garbage – Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Colter, even the “Christian” echo-voice of Cal Thomas.

Surely Confucius would be letting them have it in his gentle, scholarly, helpfully radical way – asking them at least to rectify their name.

But then they and their patrons would have to acknowledge what’s really going on here. And again, that’s the point.